Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD)

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Colne Valley Sewerage Board, presented by Mr. Henry Brooke; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Works what action he now proposes to take over the future of Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): The Royal Fine Art Commission will shortly be consulted about the architect's proposals for the Downing Street houses.

Captain Pilkington: Does not my right hon. Friend think it very altruistic of hon. Members opposite to take any interest in the future of Downing Street?

Office Buildings, Greater London

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Works how many office buildings are owned by his Department in the Greater London area; for what purposes they are used; and how many people are employed in them.

Mr. Molson: Since the Answer consists of a long tabulated statement, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr.Johnson: May I ask my right hon Friend Whether he will at least give an answer to the first part of the Question and say how many buildings are owned by the Ministry of Works?

Mr.Molson: one hundred and thirteen.

Following is the Answer:


STATEMENT OF OFFICE BUILDINGS OWNED BY THE MINISTRY OF WORKS IN GREATER LONDON, THEIR PURPOSE, AND THE NUMBERS OF STAFF THEREIN


Nature of Occupancy
No. of Buildings
No. of Staff


Headquarters staffs, including those of the Service Departments
35
23,500


Local office staffs:—




Social Service Departments(47)




Revenue Departments(8)




County Courts(14)




—
69
2,800


Jointly occupied by head quarter and local office staffs
9
5,100


Total
113
31,400

New Buildings

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Works on how many new buildings work has been started by his Department since 1st January, 1957; what is the purpose of these buildings; how many have been completed; by what date it is estimated that the remainder will be completed; and what is the estimated cost.

Mr. Molson: The information available includes a table of figures which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It relates to the United Kingdom only, although we build all over the world.

Mr. Johnson: Again, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will answer the first part of the Question and say on how many new buildings work has been started? As there are already 113 in use, is it necessary to start on any more?

Mr. Molson: If the hon. Gentleman will wait to read the Answer, I think that he will understand the reasons for it. He could have derived most of this


information from the Civil Estimates for this year, without involving about 50 man-hours of work in the Department and the setting out of information, the relevance of which I do not quite follow.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be unneces-

NEW WORKS £10,000 AND OVER ERECTED BY THE MINISTRY OF WORKS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM


Categories of Buildings
Started since 1st January, 1957
Completed by 18th March, 1959


No. of Schemes
Estimated cost
No. of Schemes
Estimated cost




£

£


Government Buildings (including Courts and Prisons, Ministry of Labour, Insurance, Pensions and Inland Revenue Offices, etc.)
83
3,763,771
23
1,185,726


Housing (including barracks) for Service Departments, Ministry of Supply, Atomic Energy Authority and Prison Commission, etc.
23
1,218,485
13
632,278


Museums and Art Galleries
10
788,674
6
445,722


Research Establishments (including R.O.Fs.) for Ministry of Supply, Atomic Energy Authority, Admiralty, D.S.I.R., Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, etc.
104
21,284,388
30
1,331,478


Post Office (including Garage and Workshops, etc.)
155
6,818,105
75
1,927,677


Telephone Exchanges (including Telephone Manager's Offices, etc.)
183
8,942,558
66
1,883,135


U.SA.A.F.
8
107,490
—
—


Total
566
42,923,471
213
7,406,016

353 schemes started on different dates since 1st January, 1957, are due to finish on various dates ranging from months to years ahead.

Victoria Tower, Palace of Westminster (Flag)

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Minister of Works whether he will ensure that the Union flag on the Victoria Tower of the Palace of Westminster is reasonably clean and is flown close up and not slightly dipped as on several recent occasions.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): Yes, Sir. The standing instructions are that flags are to be changed as necessary for cleaning and repair. The flag is hoisted close up in the morning and if, owing to weather conditions, it dips during the day, this is attended to.

Mr. Bell: Will my hon. Friend explain why the flag is often extremely

sarily aggressive about this. Having done his homework, he surely knows on how many new buildings work has started. That is a perfectly simple question.

Mr. Molson: Five hundred and sixty-six.

Following is the information:

dirty and dipped below the truck? Will he consider having the flag washed with soap and water at frequent intervals?

Mr. Nicholls: I think that it was just unfortunate that my hon. Friend looked up on these particular days.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is not the real reason that the Government have dragged it in the mud?

Palace of Westminster (Lifts)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Works the estimated cost of manning the lift serving the basement, the ground floor, the Library floor, the Committee floor and the upper Committee floor from 7 p.m. until the House rises.

Mr. H. Nicholls: This would involve increasing the complement of attendants


by one at an estimated cost of some £500 per annum.

Mr. Hayman: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary consider this a pettifogging meanness in economy when considering the facilities of the Mother of Parliaments?

Mr. Nicholls: No. I understand the very real interest which the hon. Gentleman has taken in this matter, and I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is trying hard to give the facilities that the hon. Gentleman desires without incurring unnecessary expense. We shall continue to try to solve this problem, and I am sure that we shall arrive at a solution satisfactory to all.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Works the cost of manning the lift in the House of Peers after 7 p.m.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The cost so far this year has been £5 14s. 8d., representing overtime payments to the lift attendant on the occasion of late sittings.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this expenditure has been wholly incurred on late sittings or whether it is due to cocktail parties and dinner parties in the House of Lords after the House has risen? Why is it that they can have this service on the lift after 7 o'clock but this House cannot?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is not very worthy in this matter. It is due to late sittings on 15 occasions, and the length of late sittings varied from five minutes to four and a half hours.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Long-Distance Radio Communication

Mr. Farey-Jones: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what help has been given by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to overcome the recurrent difficulties in world-wide radio communication.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The Radio Research Station of the Department provides forecasts of the most suitable radio wavelengths to be used for long-distance

communication for several months in advance. These forecasts are extensively used by telecommunication operating agencies, both civil and military, in this country and overseas.

Mr. Farey-Jones: In view of the urgent—I underline "urgent"�žtechnical importance of the solution of these recurring problems, will my hon. Friend lay particular emphasis upon the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research tackling this problem and settling it at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, Sir. The Department understands the importance of this matter. As my hon. Friend, who knows much more about it than I, will know, special knowledge is required of the ionosphere, and the Department is better equipped than anyone else in the country to provide that information.

Domestic Boilers (Flues)

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what advice the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has to offer to prevent or cure the problem of widespread damage to flues in houses with small domestic boilers.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The Building Research Station of the Department has shown that chemicals in condensed moisture in the flue cause distortion of stacks and staining of inside and outside walls and attack the mortar, crack the brickwork and cause the rendering to fall away. The trouble is best avoided by providing an impervious lining to the flue whenever possible.

Mr. Pannell: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the widest publicity is given to his reply? What steps is he taking to enlist the support of the building trade in the solution of this problem?

Mr. Nicholls: The Department knows that this is a troublesome point and has let the architects and all the building organisations have all the knowledge which it has acquired from this research. Indeed, the building industry is working on the problem, too.

Road Research Laboratory

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether a review has yet been made as to which Department should control the Road Research Laboratory, as recommended by the Select Committee on Estimates in its Fifth Report of Session 1957–58; and what action it is proposed to take.

Mr. H. Nicholls: An inter-Departmental review of the control of the stations to which the Committee refers has been initiated. The question is still under consideration.

Mr. Davies: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any indication when the review is likely to be terminated? Does he realise that there is a certain amount of uncertainty as to the future of the Department, the work of which is becoming of increasing importance in view of the increase in the number of vehicles on the roads and the added danger of road accidents?

Mr. Nicholls: I accept the hon. Member's point concerning the importance of the matter. I am sorry that I cannot give any indication how long the review will take, but it is under way.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what action has been taken on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates, made in its Fifth Report of Session 1957–58, that tenders received from contractors for road work to be done to new specifications should be shown to the Road Research Laboratory, and that it should be informed of the results obtained.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Arrangements to increase the already substantial collaboration between the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Road Research Laboratory have been made along the lines of this recommendation.

Diesel and Petrol Engines (Exhaust Fumes)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research is being carried out in regard to controlling the

emission of diesel oil and petrol exhaust fumes from vehicles; and what results have so far been obtained.

Mr. Nicholls: Research on combustion in diesel and petrol engines with a view to reduction in the emission of exhaust fumes is being carried out by the Motor Industry Research Association and the British Internal Combustion Engine Research Association, each of which is supported by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Results of this and other work show that the greater part of the smoke from such engines can be prevented by proper adjustment, running and maintenance. The Warren Spring Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has tested a catalytic device which reduces the pollution from petrol engine fumes effectively.

Mr. Davies: While I welcome that reply, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary agrees that it indicates that the operators of vehicles are remiss in not controlling the emission of these noxious fumes? Will the Parliamentary Secretary make representations in the right quarters for the more vigorous enforcement of the regulations? The very large amount of fumes which are emitted is a growing menace on the roads.

Mr. Nicholls: Yes. From the personal experience of all of us, it is a fact that in far too many cases proper maintenance has not been carried out, resulting in the emission of unpleasant fumes. I assure the hon. Member that this is well known and that anything that can be done by my noble Friend's Department is being done to ensure that the authorities which can insist upon proper maintenance do so.

Mr. Davies: What is being done? The matter has been raised in the House on several occasions, but no indication has been given of the action which is being taken to reduce this menace on the roads.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member knows that action of this kind is against the law and the authorities for enforcing the law are well known to the hon. Member. I have no doubt that they recognise the importance of the matter. The Questions and Answers which we have in this House from time to time underline not only the importance that the Department attaches to this problem, but the importance which this House attaches to ensuring that action is taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Eyemouth Harbour

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to announce his decision with regard to Eyemouth Harbour.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): No, Sir, not yet. Representatives of the harbour trustees have discussed their proposals with officials of my right hon. Friend's Department and have undertaken to consider whether a less costly scheme would meet the needs of the harbour.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my noble Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that it is difficult to see how a scheme very much smaller than the £300,000 scheme would meet the needs of the situation?

Detective Officers (Training Courses)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Scottish detective training school functions for only four weeks each year; and whether he will consider setting up this school on a more permanent basis to provide some link with the study of criminology at United Kingdom universities.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Annual courses for detective officers are held at Edinburgh and Glasgow in alternate years. The arrangements are in accordance with the advice given to my right hon. Friend by the Chief Constables' (Scotland) Association and by a committee of chief constables and other ranks of the police service under the chairmanship of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. The Chief Constables' (Scotland) Association is at present considering whether the length of the course or the number of courses should be increased and is obtaining the views of detective officers on the subject. Some of the instruction at the courses is given by lecturers from the universities. There are also courses at universities which police officers can attend, such as the extra-mural course on criminal science and administration at Glasgow.

Mrs. Mann: I am glad to know that the matter is to some extent under review. In reviewing the position, however, will the hon. Gentleman have regard to the much superior position of the English constabulary in that at Cambridge there is almost a permanent school? In view of the serious increase of crime, does not the Joint Under-Secretary think that regard should be paid to the recommendations by a well-known sheriff that this matter should be on a more permanent basis?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, but England has many more detectives to train. A lot of training is given in forces and detectives can be attached to larger forces for training. In addition, courses for specialist officers such as fingerprint experts are given in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen and there are annual conferences of detective officers from all forces and group conferences at regular intervals for detectives from the west, east, and north of Scotland.

Distribution of Industry Act, 1945 (Section 3)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schemes of rehabilitation were suspended in 1952; and how many are now sanctioned under Section 3 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): Any question on the rehabilitation of derelict sites under Section 5 of the 1945 Act should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. As regards Section 3, which refers, not to rehabilitation, but to the improvement of basic services, no schemes where assistance had been promised were suspended by Scottish Departments in 1952. The renewed availability of grant under Section 3 for water and sewerage schemes was intimated to local authorities on 12th March and applications since received are now under consideration by the Department of Health.

Mrs. Mann: To whom falls the responsibility under Sections 3 and 5 of the 1945 Act? Are local authorities aware to whom they should apply?

Mr. Browne: I am sure that local authorities are aware. The responsibility under Section 5 is that of the Board of Trade and under Section 3, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Scottish Universities Entrance Board (Regulations)

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the representations made to him about the probable effects which the proposed new regulations of the Scottish Universities Entrance Board will have on the work of the schools, what action he proposes to take.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The regulations are a matter for the universities themselves, although they consult my right hon. Friend's Department. As Glasgow University has intimated dissent from the regulations, the other universities have petitioned the Queen in Council praying for them to be approved. I understand that Her Majesty at a Council this morning referred the matter to the Scottish Universities Committee for consideration and report. A notice is being published shortly by the Privy Council Office in the Edinburgh Gazette and certains newspapers circulating in Scotland about the submission of petitions for or against such approval.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I think I heard my hon. Friend say something about the Scottish Universities Committee. Who forms that Committee? Secondly, may one take it that members of the Educational Institute of Scotland and other groups of teachers may have an opportunity of expressing their feelings about this matter?

Mr. Macpherson: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I would inform my hon. Friend that he will find the composition of the Committee referred to in Section 9 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889. In answer to the second part of the supplementary question, notice will be given regarding the submission of petitions and it will then be for the Committee to decide how these should be dealt with. Certainly, the E.I.S. will have an opportunity to submit petitions.

Speed Limit

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the introduction of a 40 miles per hour speed limit on selected stretches of road in Scotland of similar type to those English roads where the 40 miles per hour speed limit is giving general satisfaction.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. The provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, which would allow the introduction of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit outside the London Traffic Area, cannot come into effect until a report has been made to Parliament on its experimental use in that area.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Has my hon. Friend any information as to when such a report will be in the hands of the Scottish Office?

Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir, it is not yet known when that report will be available. First the views of the Departmental Road Safety Committee on the results of the experimental introduction of the speed restriction have to be obtained.

Roads, East of Scotland

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the plan for building a modern road system through the east of Scotland; and how soon he expects the task to be completed.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The future road pattern in the east of Scotland, as elsewhere, is shown in the development plans for the local authority areas concerned. When these plans can be carried out will depend on how much of our resources can be devoted to this part of the country, having regard to the needs of Scotland as a whole.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his statement is extremely vague, that it does not take into account the importance of the nature of the developing industry in that area, and that now would seem to be a particularly appropriate time to push ahead, particularly with the Tay Road Bridge, so that


this bridge and the Forth Road Bridge could together form part of that modernised system?

Mr. Macpherson: One has to bear in mind, in considering this part of the country, that the Forth Road Bridge is costing a considerable proportion of the £40 million that is being devoted to the development of roads in Scotland at present.

Digest of Statistics

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider issuing the Scottish Digest of Statistics quarterly instead of half-yearly as at present.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is anxious to provide as much information as Parliament and the public want, but before agreeing to the hon. Member's suggestion he would wish to be thoroughly convinced that the advantage of a quarterly publication of the Digest would be commensurate with the considerable extra work and cost that would be involved.

Mr. Hamilton: Does that reply mean that the hon. Gentleman has the suggestion under consideration, or is he rejecting it out of hand? It is rather important that Scottish Members should have this extra information, much of which is out of date by the time we get the six-monthly document.

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend and I would be glad to consult with the hon. Gentleman and others concerned. We do not reject this out of hand, but I must point out to the House that it would involve a considerable amount of extra work, as the figures are not available in this form in every case.

Eggs

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the effect in Scotland of the reduction of the guarantee for eggs.

Lord John Hope: The course of egg production in Scotland will depend on a number of factors of which the change in the guarantee is only one and no precise estimate is possible.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are a number of small

farmers in Scotland who are not crofters, and therefore do not gain under the crofting subsidies, who will be hurt by the limitation of the marginal grants system, and who have been depending largely on the sale of eggs? Can he give us any idea about their position?

Lord John Hope: From previous experience, I do not think it is likely that there will be any drastic reduction in the production of eggs. It has not happened before, and it is unlikely to happen now.

Herring

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the arrangements, prices, etc., for the coming herring season in the North and on the prospects of finding continental markets.

Lord John Hope: The Herring Industry Board has submitted for approval a draft rule prescribing minimum prices for the year beginning on 1st May. My right hon. Friends are considering the rule along with the objections lodged to it and it is hoped that a decision will be reached shortly. As regards the latter part in the Question, the general problem n recent years has been to supply enough herring to our continental customers.

Mr. Grimond: If this is the case, is not it very important indeed to keep up the strength of the herring fleets? Also, will the Minister, when considering giving approval to this rule, bear in mind that the Herring Board must offer a price, even for fishmeal, which renders it profitable to fish for herring?

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that all relevant considerations, including that one, will be taken into account.

Mrs. Mann: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if we may take it that, now he has answered Questions on agriculture, eggs and fishing, the Scottish Office are now accepting these Questions and not passing them on to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Lord John Hope: The hon. Lady can accept the fact that the Scottish Office has accepted Questions which have been answered by Scottish Office Ministers. She can certainly do that.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish contact with the Russian fleets off Shetland with a view to persuading them to use local facilities and to preventing the fouling of seine netting grounds by their debris; and if he will request the Herring Industry l3oard to explore the market in Russia for herring caught in Shetland waters.

Lord John Hope: I understand that the Russians are already making considerable use of local facilities at Lerwick. As regards the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend is taking steps in consultation with the Admiralty to get into touch with the Russian vessels.
On the last part of the Question, in recent years the problem has been to find enough suitable herring to fulfil the Russian contract and last year about half the herring actually supplied came from Shetland waters.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask why the Scottish Office is so timid about approaching the Russians, who have been lying off the coast of Shetland for years and yet apparently only now is serious contact being established with them? It is true that occasionally they land, but we should be delighted to offer them more facilities. They might bring employment, they might bring money. Of course, we should like to get rid of their debris as soon as possible, but we cannot help thinking that there must be an outlet for winter herring, which so far the people of Shetland have not been able to tap, and we should like the support of the Scottish Office in finding out whether we cannot explore these markets further.

Lord John Hope: I had hoped that my Answer would reassure the hon. Gentleman. As regards timidity, my answer directly encouraged the Russians to come to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That seems to me to be the reverse of timid.

Senior Secondary Schools (Working Party Recommendations)

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take about the new ordinary grade examination and the recommendations of the Working Party

on the Curriculum of the Senior Secondary School.

Mr. N. Macpherson: After considering the views received from various educational bodies, my right hon. Friend has decided to defer the introduction of the certificate from 1961 to 1962. He proposes to issue a circular within the next few weeks on the recommendations in the Report.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: This is a postponement. Have the schools asked for this postponement?

Mr. Macpherson: The Association of Directors of Education has pressed strongly for this and the Educational Institute of Scotland has advised deferment. On the other hand, the Association of Headmasters thinks that we should adhere to 1961, but since it would be desirable to introduce this change in an atmosphere of complete readiness, my right hon. Friend thinks it right to postpone until 1962.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Industrial Estates, Wales (Rents)

Mr. Gower: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from tenants of factories in Welsh industrial estates regarding future rentals; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): A number of tenants in Wales have made representations to the Board of Trade in connection with the rents for proposed extensions. As I said in the course of the debate on 10th February, current market value will continue to be the basis of rents for our factories in Development Areas.

Mr. Gower: Although the long-term industrial prospects in Wales appear to be extremely good, does my hon. Friend recognise that particular parts of Wales are facing real problems? Does not it seem inappropriate in those circumstances that proposals should be made which may involve substantial increases in rent?

Mr. Rodgers: Of course, values have gone up too in the time since the rents were first negotiated. Tenants in England and Wales may appeal to the courts


under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, to determine the current market value when a lease is to be renewed. This does not apply in Scotland.

U.S.S.R. (Long-term Trade Credits)

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning his investigations into the Russian desire for long-term trade credits.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I cannot add to the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) on 12th March.

Mr. Lewis: That was no Answer. Is the Minister aware of the fact that only yesterday the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance informed me that we are now paying £64 million a year in National Insurance unemployment benefits and National Assistance grants to men who are unemployed in this country? Would not it be better to make a large financial credit to the Russians and put these people to work? Is it not better to have them working than to pay £50 million or £60 million in dole?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the answer to the supplementary question on the earlier occasion, he will see that my right hon. Friend said:
This is a difficult question but one which is well worth while investigating. We are trying to obtain more information from the Russians on the subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 1436.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While it is desirable to increase trade with Soviet Russia, would not my hon. Friend agree that if there are applications for long-term trade credits, priority should be given to Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: In general terms, yes.

New Industry, Burntwood

Mr. Snow: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, arising out of the meeting held at Lichfield on 13th July, 1951, attended by a representative of his Department who agreed that there was a case for additional light industry at Burntwood, Staffordshire, and in view of the closing of Cannock Chase No. 3

Pit and the present need for a more flexible industrial potential in the district, he will make a statement on the inquiries which he has received from suitable firms about the facilities available at Burntwood.

Mr. J. Rodgers: As I told the hon. Member on 9th February, we should be glad to see suitable firms from the vicinity of Birmingham set up in the Burntwood district. Industrial development certificates totalling nearly one-quarter of a million square feet have been issued for projects in the locality in recent years.

Mr. Snow: Be that as it may, he Government have now had eight years since a representative from the hon. Gentleman's Department visited the area, and virtually no employment for women has been provided, and the recent closure of the pit, as the result of the Government's economic policy, has made the male employment position even more serious.

Mr. Rodgers: As I also informed the hon. Gentleman on 9th February, it is understood that, except for a small number of workers who will be retiring altogether or are unfit, all those who were unemployed at the Cannock Chase No. 3 pit have been found jobs by the National Coal Board within the Cannock Chase area. The position set out in the hon. Gentleman's Question, therefore, is not quite as serious as he alleges.

Mr. Snow: is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people are now having to travel inordinate distances to other towns and that this is a real hardship? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Rodgers: We are trying to induce footloose firms to go to areas of high unemployment.

Mr. Snow: Footloose? What on earth does the hon. Gentleman mean?

Isle of Sheppey (Advance Factory)

Mr. P. Wells: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will authorise the erection of an advance factory on the Isle of Sheppey.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The Board of Trade has no powers to build factories in the Isle of Sheppey.

Mr. Wells: Is the Minister aware that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? Will he give some reconsideration to the matter, especially as it has been quite impossible to dispose of Sheerness Dockyard, owing primarily to the cost that would be involved in switching over from a naval repair plant and organisation to civilian production? Would not the hon. Gentleman give some consideration to providing financial assistance to a firm or firms to make that switch-over, in the event of such a firm or firms coming forward?

Mr. Rodgers: I am well aware of the concern of the hon. Gentleman for the employment situation in the Isle of Sheppey, but I would remind him that the island is one of the places which do qualify for assistance under the 1958 D.A.T.A.C. scheme.

Mr. Wells: Why does the hon. Gentleman say he has no power, in view of the fact that it is a scheduled area?

Mr. Rodgers: It is a scheduled area under the D.A.T.A.C. scheme, but it is not scheduled under the 1945 Act, and, therefore, we have no powers.

Messrs. Wickman, Ltd., Hillington (Factories)

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, as a result of his investigation, he will now say whether one or both of the factories used by Wickman, Limited, Hillington, will be closed.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I understand that the firm announced last Friday that the factory at Hillington is to be closed over the next few months, but that the factory at North Cardonald will continue in production.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, last night, speaking in Glasgow to the people of Scotland, the Lord Chancellor stated that the Government would use all their powers to deal with unemployment in Scotland? Now that the hon. Gentleman is being given his chance to deal with threatened unemployment in Hillington, will he tell us what steps he proposes to take in order to keep these men at work?

Mr. Rodgers: We shall do our best, of course to try to find jobs for these

redundant workers, and use the powers which we have at the present moment. We are advertising the five existing empty factories in Scotland.

New Industry, Ayrshire

Mr. Ross: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken in the past three months to bring new industry to Ayrshire.

Mr. J. Rodgers: North-West Ayrshire was added in January last to the list of places to benefit from the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958. Since the 1st December last three industrial projects in Ayrshire have been approved, two of which should in due course employ 215 workers.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister realise that so far the steps that have been taken have been quite ineffective and that the position is very serious indeed? Is he aware that in one part we have got nearly 16 per cent. of the insured population unemployed?

Mr. Rodgers: I realise the gravity of the situation, but I would point out that in Kilmarnock itself the figure is 2·6.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in general, all those British industries whose products are subjected to high rates of Purchase Tax such as 60 per cent. and 30 per cent. suffer severely as regards production and distribution efficiency during the period of January to April each year because the shops and the shopping public are inclined to hold off buying in the hope that appreciation of the country's economic needs will persuade him to reduce these high levels of Purchase Tax in his Budget; and if he will give this consideration priority in connection with his future arrangements for amending the Purchase Tax Schedule of the Finance Act, 1958.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): My hon. Friend must not over-state this problem. Nor must he expect me to anticipate my Budget decisions.

Mr. Nabarro: Has not my right hon. Friend read the national newspapers today? Is he aware that three more large and famous trading firms, Harrods, Cannon (Holdings) Ltd., and Lewis Investment Trust, Limited—added to Leyland Motors, Limited, and Jaguar Cars, Limited, last Thursday—have all protested in the most vigorous terms on the very point which is enshrined in this Question? Will my right hon. Friend bow to the overwhelming volume of industrial and commercial opinion, which supports me in these matters, against his own minority view?

Mr. Amory: I think my hon. Friend must agree that his own modest activities in these matters—not that I am quarrelling with him in any way—have made a small contribution towards keeping alive in the breasts of business men some anxieties about the theoretical, hypothetical and highly speculative possibilities of Budget action in this field.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us which of the concerns mentioned by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) have raised their dividends?

Mr. Nabarro: That is thoroughly irrelevant, of course.

Mr. Amory: I am afraid I have not yet got round to a study of the national Press today.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the ill-feeling caused amongst the people of Wales by the levy of Purchase Tax at 30 per cent. on the national musical instrument of their country, the harp, whilst pianos and other similar instruments have for many years been free of such tax; and what steps he proposes to take in the near future to ensure that the importance of dealing with this matter sympathetically at an early date is properly appreciated by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Amory: I cannot anticipate my Budget decisions.

Mr. Nabarro: While having no special partiality or solicitude for the people of Wales, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will again apply himself to the fact that Welsh harps, bagpipes, trumpets and horns all carry Purchase

Tax at 30 per cent. whereas pianos carry none?

Mr. Snow: The answer is that the hon. Gentleman should play the harp.

Mr. Nabarro: Why should my right hon. Friend discriminate in this invidious fashion?

Mr. Amory: I should like to assure my hon. Friend that there is no racial discrimination here. Bagpipes carry the same rate of 30 per cent.

Mr. Nabarro: That is exactly what I said.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what percentage of the total revenue is represented by the current yield of Purchase Tax; and what such percentage would be if all goods liable to tax at 60 per cent. became liable to tax at 30 per cent., and if the 30 per cent. tax were abolished on goods liable to such rates on Groups 12, 19 (a), 26 (b), 27 and 28.

Mr. Amory: The Budget estimate of £490 million for the yield of Purchase Tax in the current financial year represented 9 per cent. of the estimated total ordinary revenue of £5,439 million. As regards the second part of the Question, the Purchase Tax estimate included about £209 million in respect of goods chargeable at 60 per cent. and about £88 million in respect of the 30 per cent. goods mentioned by my hon. Friend. It is not the practice to publish any revision of Budget estimates in the course of the financial year.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the 194th Purchase Tax Question from myself in the 1958–59 series? Are his Answers considered to be sufficiently provocative to cause me to proceed with a further century in the next Parliamentary Session?

Mr. Amory: I realise that for my hon. Friend this is the last shoot of the season, and, because I am very anxious that he should not go home without something in the bag, I should like to assure him that, in the review of taxation Which I am now in the course of making, I shall give full consideration to his views.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will


give the comparable monthly or other figures for receipts from Purchase Tax on shopping bags, shopping baskets, and handbags, respectively, before and after the changes effected by the last Budget.

Mr. Amory: I regret that this information is not available.

Income Tax (Schedule A)

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals to the General Commissioners against assessment to Income Tax under Schedule A have been made and heard, respectively, during each of the past five complete fiscal years.

Mr. Amory: I regret the information is not available.

Mr. Page: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that most of these appeals arise out of the discrepancy between new valuations and the valuations of existing houses, which were valued some 20 years ago? Does not that show that the method of collection of Schedule A tax is unsatisfactory?

Mr. Amory: In the absense of the information for which my hon. Friend asked, I am not able to give him a certain reply to his Question.

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the number of units of assessment for Schedule A tax which remain at the annual value determined at the last quinquennial valuation made some 22 years ago; and in respect of how many of such units an annual value has been determined since the last quinquennial valuation.

Mr. Amory: The total number of Schedule A assessments is now about 17½ million, and it is estimated that in about a third of these the annual value has been determined since the last quinquennial revaluation which came into force in 1936–37.

Mr. Page: Is not it a fact that because they have had a recent valuation as compared with the other two-thirds, that one-third is subsidising the other two-thirds to a certain extent, and is not that one of the unfairnesses of the Schedule A tax?

Mr. Amory: I am not sure that I accept the implication of what my hon.

Friend has suggested, but I will take note of his views.

Mr. Jay: In considering any case for reducing or abolishing Schedule A tax, will the Chancellor also take into account the need to be fair to those people who pay rent out of taxed income?

Mr. Amory: I will take account of all the relevant considerations, including the one mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the amount of Schedule A tax paid annually by occupiers of property belonging to the Crown.

Mr. Amory: I regret that no such estimate can be made.

Mr. Page: Is not this a case where my right hon. Friend could be fair to the tenants, in that the tenants of Crown property are called on to pay what is called a landlord's property tax without, apparently, any recourse to the Crown? Is not this another anomaly which would justify my right hon. Friend doing away with Schedule A tax?

Mr. Amory: I do not think so but, once again, I will look into the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Loans and Grants

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of money provided in loans and grants by the United Kingdom since the end of the war in 1945 to other members of the Commonwealth, to the Colonial Territories, to non-Commonwealth members of the sterling area, and other countries, respectively.

Mr. Amory: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: is not this something which should be made widely known besides being published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and can my right hon. Friend say how the amount compares, roughly, with the amount of money made available to this country by the United States? Would not the comparison prove creditable to Britain?

Mr. Amory: I am much in favour of this information being given the widest possible publicity, because the figures reflect great credit on the achievements of this country. Without notice, I should not like to make any comparison with the performance of the United States which has also been extremely generous in this respect.

Following is the Answer:


UNITED KINGDOM LOANS AND GRANTS FROM GOVERNMENT FUNDS TO OTHER COUNTRIES AND UNITED KINGDOM COLONIAL TERRITORIES, 1945-59


£m. (to the nearest £10m.)


—
Grants
Loans


Independent Commonwealth countries
30
110


U.K. Colonial Territories
420
110


Non-Common wealth sterling area countries
170
20


Other countries
640
470


Total
1,260
710


Grand Total
1,970

NOTES:

(1) The figures above are of actual (or in the case of the current financial year estimated) disbursements as distinct from authorisations or sanctions.

(2) The figures reflect in part the financial value of loans or grants made in kind.

(3) The figures of loans and grants to "other countries" include large contributions towards the cost of post-war reconstruction in Europe in the immediate post-war years and the table does not therefore reflect the current pattern of loans and grants.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the cost of repaying post-war credits to those persons who are 60 years of age or more and whose credits are £50 or less.

Mr. Amory: The cost of repaying men of 60 or more and women of 55 or more whose credits are £50 or less would be about £30 million.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the cost of repaying post-war credits to those persons who are 60 years of age or more, and whose credits are £25 or less.

Mr. Amory: The cost of repaying men of 60 or more and women of 55 or more

whose credits are £25 or less would be about £10 million.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the cost of repaying post-war credits to those persons who are 55 years of age or more, and whose credits are £25 or less.

Mr. Amory: The cost of repaying men who are 55 years or more and women who are 50 years or more whose credits are £25 or less would be about £25 million.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Freeth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not one allowed to put a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had been so self-denying on his previous Questions that I did not think he intended to ask a supplementary question on this one.

Mr. Freeth: That was so that I could have all the relevant information, Mr. Speaker.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider the possibility of making some such repayment of post-war credits along these lines, since that would provide the greatest possible benefit to those who need it most at the smallest possible cost to the Exchequer? Will not my right Friend agree that elderly people with small means who have post-war credits are likely to be the people who in their working lives had relatively little and have the least amount of savings?

Mr. Amory: I will take account of the views of my hon. Friend in the course of the review of all financial questions upon which I am now engaged.

Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the figure he has given, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that there is an overwhelming case for alleviating the hardship among a great many sections of the community by anticipating the date on which some of these hard-pressed people will receive payment of their post-war credits?

Mr. Amory: I will also take account of the views of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will enumerate the administrative difficulties which make it impossible to repay postwar credits in cases of hardship.

Mr. Amory: The difficulties centre mainly round the necessity of discriminating betwen one form or degree of hardship and another.

Mr. Chetwynd: When preparing the Budget speech which he will make in a few days' time, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that a great many people will be expecting him to tackle this problem seriously? Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to explain why, when it is a question of paying money back, there are always administrative difficulties, but when it is a question of taking money from people those difficulties do not seem to exist?

Mr. Amory: I will take account of the point which the hon. Gentleman has very kindly made.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce amending legislation to the Parliament Act, 1911, substituting four years for five as the maximum duration of Parliament.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer is not very surprising, in view of the recent Gallup Poll results? Nevertheless, would not he agree that five years is a rather long time to keep the British public from expressing an opinion, and will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. Butler: I see no reason to alter one of the fundamentals of the British constitution, as laid down in the 1911 Act, nor do I think that any ephemeral considerations should be brought into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (OFFICIAL MISSIONS)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister on how many occasions during the current year he has given permission for a Minister's wife to travel on an official mission with her husband at the

public expense; and if he will give a list of the official missions in question and the Ministers involved.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The Answer to the first part of the Question is four so far, Sir. I will, with permission, circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:
The official missions involved were the visit of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to Caracas and Port of Spain in January; the visit of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to Malaya in January; the projected visit of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to Ghana in May, and the projected visit of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, to Queensland in August.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (TELEVISION)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange with the leaders of the political parties to have discussions concerning the procedure to be adopted on televising political activities connected with Parliamentary by-elections on the basis that, provided the majority of the candidates taking part are so willing, the by-election activities should be televised by joint agreement and arrangement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. The initiative for such broadcasts is with the broadcasting authorities. Hon. Members will no doubt have seen the statement made by the British Broadcasting Corporation on 20th March stating that the Corporation has been advised that it would be liable to prosecution under Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, if not all of the candidates took part in a broadcast.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not anti-democratic and against the usual run of affairs when, as with the last by-election and the one pending, there are three candidates, the majority being in favour of the broadcast taking place, the minority can, by refusing to take part, prevent the majority having their wish? If the majority of candidates at a by-election signify that they are willing, should not that decide


the issue and should not the minority either take part or abstain from going on the programme? Is not that the best way?

Mr. Butler: The situation is not quite as simple as that. We are governed by the Representation of the People Act and by the Television Act, which controls the I.T.A. and which requires that all political programmes shall have equal balance between all parties. In order to carry out the terms of those Acts, it is important that all the parties should agree. If they did not agree, we could not have majority rule, because it would not be consistent with those Acts.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not just a question of majority rule, but of how we are to interpret the question of keeping a fair balance between the different parties? Is not a new situation now developing in which with two successive by-elections television broadcasts have been vetoed by one party? While I am anxious that this matter should be settled by agreement between the parties, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider talks through the usual channels to see whether the matter can be reconsidered?

Mr. Butler: It is interesting that in several of the by-elections, namely, those at Southend, West, Shoreditch and Finsbury, Morecambe and Lansdale, St. Helens, Wigan and Islington, North, this issue did not arise, while it did arise at Torrington, Harrow, East, and Norfolk, South-West. Any aspect of broadcasting policy can and will be considered and discussed, as has often been the case, but this matter would be governed, as far as I can see, by the terms of the Statutes in question. Therefore, it is rather more fundamental than any of the other matters raised in our discussions. If anybody like the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition himself has any points to put, we should be only too glad to consider them.

Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. Friend explain whether official party broadcasts constitute an exception to the legal requirements of the ordinary case, where if one party is represented, the opposing party must also have a representative present?

Mr. Butler: Nothing is more abstruse, except medieval theology, than the

general regulations covering broadcasting. If I apprehend my hon. Friend's supplementary question correctly, an ordinary party political broadcast is allowed for in the programme and is undertaken by the parties on a rota according to a certain number. In fact, I am going to do one tonight and that is an ordinary party political broadcast.
However, on the occasion of a by-election, hitherto the situation has been governed by the terms of the Television Act, which set up the I.T.A. and which demanded balance, and by the terms of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, in relation to the alleged expenses of candidates. Those are the governing Statutes and it has therefore been impossible to proceed in a by-election without agreement. The next Question on the Order Paper deals with a General Election. In the case of a by-election we do not see any way round at present, but if there are any representations, I shall listen to them.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that the people most affected are the public and the electorate and that if it should prove that they are to be deprived of their main means of political debate, there must be a case for altering the present law?

Mr. Butler: As Dr. Joad used to say, it depends on what is meant by "main means of debate". There is a variety of means of debate, and I am certain that this would not work unless there were agreement among the parties.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister the arrangements he is proposing for televising speeches by hon. Members during the next General Election.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The right hon. Gentleman may wish to be reminded that the arrangements for political broadcasting at the next General Election which were made by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority after joint consultation with the Government and the two Opposition parties were announced by the authorities on 18th March.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several hon. Members, including myself, are not familiar with


the details of the arrangements, particularly as regards private Members? In the circumstances, will he set out the details in a White Paper so that we may be fully enlightened? At the same time, can he say how the rights of private Members are to be safeguarded at the next General Election? Are we to apply to the television authorities to appear on television, and are we at the same time to be instructed on how to conduct ourselves on television programmes? What is the position of private Members?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who is to do the instructing?

Mr. Butler: As this is a matter essentially for the parties, it would not be proper for me to issue this information in a White Paper, but I can certainly arrange for a copy of the statement issued by the authorities to be placed in the Library, if that will be of any assistance to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
As regards the rights of private Members, the right hon. Gentleman has so much influence with his own Front Bench that I feel sure he can influence his right hon. Friends to give him time in their broadcasts on the next occasion. Private Members take part in television broadcasts at the invitation of the authorities, and I must leave it to the discretion of the authorities themselves.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have no intention of applying to anybody for permission to appear on television, that I can look after myself in that regard and that I have had sufficient television experience? I am concerned with the rights of private Members in a matter of this sort. Are these matters to be left entirely to the Government Front Bench and to the hierarchy of the Opposition Front Bench? When the General Election comes, what is to be the position of private Members? What are we to do in these matters? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain?

Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to paragraph 3 of the statement issued by the authorities, he will see that, in addition to the main national series which are run by the authorities, the Corporations will broadcast a series of regional programmes from a number of centres in which selected candidates

will take part. Smaller parties may participate according to a qualification to be announced later. Those programmes will be under the discretion of the authorities. There would therefore be opportunities, other than purely party political broadcasts, for people to take part.

Mr. Osborne: Before my right hon. Friend agrees to a large increase in the number of televised political speeches, will he bear in mind the rights of the public who may not be so keen on hearing so many political speeches as some hon. Members allege?

Mr. Butler: We have to remember that the election period is a short and vital one. During that period there will he a number of political broadcasts which in a normal period might be too much for the digestion, but which in this period would be valuable.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman dig into his remote Radical days and appreciate the danger of constantly reiterating that agreement has been established by the parties? Does not he realise that in a democracy it is vital that the minority opinion should have an opportunity of making itself heard and that the mere fact that there is agreement in two great concentrations of power does not sanctify that agreement?

Mr. Butler: It does not sanctify it, but it makes it valid as between the partners and the authorities concerned. In relation to minorities, which are so carefully protected in the House by you, Mr. Speaker, I hope that it is possible for the minorities and individual Members to represent their views to the authorities concerned, and if it is any consolation to the hon. Member, who is a champion of minorities and who represents himself with great success, I should say that would be very glad to remind the authorities, in a perfectly constitutional way, of the existence of the demands of hon. Members.

Later—

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. In reply to supplementary questions asked on Question No. 48 which was put today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the Leader of the House said that this was a matter for Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister has said, in reply to me on another aspect of the matter, that this was a matter for the House. While it may be true that you have not all this material before you, I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you will bear in mind what the Leader of the House said on my right hon. Friend's Question, together with the three Motions which appear on the Order Paper, and if you will give consideration to all that.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order. Is not it a fact that during the period of a General Election there are no hon. Members of this House at all?

Mr. Speaker: My reply to the point of order by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is that I do not think that my jurisdiction extends beyond this House and the hon. Members in it. It certainly does not include the Independent Television Authority or the British Broadcasting Corporation. I do not think that I can do very much about it. I think that what the Leader of the House meant was that I will endeavour to the best of my ability to protect the rights of minorities in this House.

Mr. Ellis Smith: With respect, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasise that I understand that Mr. Speaker's duties are to protect not only the rights of minorities but those of private Members while in the House. If Mr. Speaker, when he has an opportunity, will analyse the Motions which appear on the Order Paper, he will see that they deal with the procedure of the House which the Prime Minister said was a matter for the House. In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted Parliament to be associated with the Nyasaland Commission of Inquiry, I would remind the House that we want Parliament to be associated with this issue, in which is involved the future democracy of Britain. Therefore, I am asking Mr. Speaker to give consideration to that matter.

Mr. Speaker: I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. While it is true, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, that during a General Election none of us will be Members of Parliament, we will all be candidates,

and presumably all equal in the eyes of the electors. If that be so, cannot we arrange that there will be a fair balance in the provision of General Election facilities as between all candidates, irrespective of what they believe their rights or prospects to be? In particular, is not it part of your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that any facilities provided for one section of hon. Members, or for that matter of candidates, are provided for the others? Will you look into the matter?

Mr. C. Pannell: Will you also consider, Mr. Speaker, that all those who have spoken up to now will be fighting the election as either Conservative or Labour candidates, and that none of those people who usually ask to be considered on independent lines will probably be elected unless they fight on one of those tickets?

Mr. Wigg: Is it not the tradition of the House that Mr. Speaker has presided over conferences dealing with matters affecting electoral law? Is it not a fact also that these new techniques of television and sound broadcasting are matters to which the House has not yet given serious consideration although they affect fundamentally the democracy of this country? Is not it a question not of party but of democracy, and therefore, in accordance with the new traditions of the Chair, will you look into the matter very carefully and give the House the benefit of your opinion?

Mr. Speaker: If I can be of assistance to hon. Members in arriving at an agreed solution on a matter upon which opinions are now divided, I shall be glad to do anything I can. I can say no more than that. During a General Election there are no Members of Parliament. I remain Speaker, I suppose, for the purpose of conducting duties unconnected with presiding in this Chamber which have been placed on me by Statute, and for no other reason. I hold on to that shadowy existence until my successor is elected. Anybody occupying the Chair, if asked by the House to help in resolving a dispute, would feel it proper to do what he could.

Mr. Mellish: In view of the fact that you are to consider this matter, Mr. Speaker, it is to be hoped that you will not give priority on television to a Privy Councillor.

Mr. Speaker: In the hypothetical event of anything of that sort happening, I had better not say anything more lest I disclose a certain bias at the outset.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH FLYING AIRCRAFT (RADIATION)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister which authority in this country is responsible for monitoring the radiation accumulated by high-flying aircraft; how regularly tests are conducted; to what extent research in this matter has been conducted with regard to both civil and military aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
No regular monitoring of aircraft is carried out because the measurements taken in the past have suggested that this is unnecessary. The need for additional research on this subject is however reviewed periodically.

Mr. Beswick: Would not the Lord Privy Seal agree that that Answer is wholly unsatisfactory? What might have been unnecessary in the past may well be very urgent and important today. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the report which was published from the Pentagon over the weekend, he will see that it is obvious that we are unaware of what is happening in the upper atmosphere. Will he, therefore, look at the matter again?

Mr. Butler: I read the previous Question asked by the hon. Member, which was answered by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, and I have also investigated when the last measurements were taken, which was early this year. At the moment we have no new material which would aid in giving the hon. Member any further information. We have the situation under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS (URANIUM SUPPLIES)

Colonel Beamish: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the present system of supplying natural uranium for use in nuclear power stations, involving immediate payment for the fuel and a refund when the fuel is

returned, is not placing British contractors at a disadvantage with foreign competitors; to what factors he ascribes the recent British failure to get an order in Baden-Württemberg; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
I understand that the Atomic Energy Authority expects to be able to arrange extended credit terms for the initial fuel charges for reactors sold abroad. It is unlikely that any practicable alteration in the terms for the supply of fuel would have affected the decision of the Baden-Württemberg undertaking not to order a British reactor.

Major Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that American contractors appear to have two major advantages in this important matter—first, the fact that Euratom enjoys a loan of 135 million dollars and, secondly, that the American Government provide enriched fuel at a low interest? Is he satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to offset these advantages?

Mr. Butler: I am, of course, aware both of the fueling and the financial advantage which, for example, the United States Euratom Agreement gives in tendering in a matter of this sort. I cannot pledge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have no doubt that he will note the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Commercial Businesses, Clearance Areas (Discretionary Payments)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the hardship caused to small business people in or on the verge of clearance areas who lose both their business and its goodwill as a result of clearance schemes; and if he will consider the desirability of introducing a scheme for compensating such people for this loss which in most cases deprives them of their livelihood.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): Local authorities are empowered under the Housing


Act, 1957, to make discretionary payments to business occupiers within clearance areas if their interest is so limited that there is no basis for statutory compensation. They can also make payments to meet the personal hardship to any shopkeeper in the locality of a clearance area whose business suffers because the population has decreased.
I doubt whether it would be practicable to introduce any statutory scheme for compensation in this type of case. But I intend to remind local authorities once again of the desirability of making appropriate use of their discretionary powers.

Mr. Awbery: I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I wished to inquire into the serious position of some of these people who have opened small shops in or near areas where clearance is to take place. Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at the matter to see what help he can give them?

Mr. Brooke: I will look at any evidence which the hon. Member sends to me. I know that there have been a number of complaints of this character from Bristol.

Private Street Works

Colonel Beamish: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether the promised survey of the working of the existing arrangements for the making up of private streets has yet begun; how long it is likely to take; whether he is aware of the urgency of this matter, since many projects which would have been undertaken in the coming months have now been deferred pending the results of the enquiry; and when he hopes to be able to announce his proposals for amendments to the existing law.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, what further progress has been made with the examination of the arrangements for the making up of private streets; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): This survey is still at a preliminary stage. I am not aware that projects have been held up pending the outcome of the survey. While my right hon. Friend appreciates the

desirability of making as rapid progress as possible it must take some time to find an answer to this complicated problem.

Colonel Beamish: I fully appreciate that. May I ask my hon. Friend whether he would be willing during an inquiry to look at typical cases of hardship which exist in my constituency—no doubt other hon. Members have similar cases in their constituencies—where the existing legislation seems to impose an unduly heavy burden on the shoulders of people who can ill afford to bear it?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, certainly. My right hon. Friend is prepared to look at any case which is put to him.

Public Works, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state, and give short particulars of, the main classes of public works so far approved in Wales for completion this year, the object of which is to relieve unemployment, together with the total cost and the cost of each class of work.

Mr. H. Brooke: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gower: I thank my right hon. Friend. Is he able to state the total amount?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. The total is just over £1,700,000, which is in addition to the expenditure which would have been sanctioned in the normal course.

Following is the Answer:


Works
Cost £


Local authority health and welfare services (old people's homes, ambulance stations, clinics, etc.)
490,000


Trunk roads
152,920


Classified roads
461,750


Rural road improvements
117,000


Home Office services
45,450


Electricity (erection of overhead lines and laying of cables)
150,000


Miscellaneous local government schemes
213,000


Site clearance at industrial trading estates
72,280


Total
1,702,400

River Colne

Mr. F. Beswick: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, in view of the fact that the River Colne between Rickmansworth and Denham, which is now largely sewage, is facilitating the breeding of the chironomus fly at an unusually rapid rate, that the river surface is almost covered with the flies, and that swarms arc creating a serious nuisance even in March. he will direct the appropriate authorities to carry out an emergency spraying operation before the warmer weather further aggravates this problem.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has no power to direct spraying operations or any other remedial action. The local authorities are, I understand aware of the problem; but they will also be aware of the danger that spraying might kill fish.

Mr. Beswick: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware that local authorities know of this problem, because they have called my attention to it? Does he appreciate that the problem is so grave that one local authority alone cannot deal with it? Is there no co-ordinating authority, such as his own Department, which could provide assistance so that this matter may be tackled?

Mr. Bevins: I can only repeat that my right hon. Friend has no power to direct local authorities to take this action. At the same time he is prepared to help with advice if that is required by local authorities.

NYASALAND (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): It has been decided to set up a Commission of Inquiry into recent events in Nyasaland. The terms of reference will be
To inquire into the recent disturbances in Nyasaland and the events leading up to them, and to report thereon.
Mr. Justice Devlin has agreed to serve as Chairman and there will be three other members—Sir John Ure Primrose, a former Lord Provost of Perth, Sir Percy Wyn-Harris, formerly Governor of the Gambia, and Mr. E. T. Williams, Warden of Rhodes House, Oxford. We are much

indebted to them all for agreeing at such short notice to take on this important task.
The Commission will be concerned only with the recent disturbances in Nyasaland and the events leading up to them. But in announcing its appointment I think it appropriate to take the opportunity to say that Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the Federal Government and with the Territorial Governments concerned, and are considering the best way of preparing for the 1960 review of the Federal Constitution.
When Her Majesty's Government are in a position to put forward proposals on this they will do so, and they fully understand that Parliament would wish to be associated in an appropriate way with any machinery that might he set up.

Mr. Gaitskell: In welcoming the announcement of the Government that a Commission of Inquiry is to be set up, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that we, for our part, would have preferred a Parliamentary Commission because we believe that the fundamental problem here is essentially a political one and because we also hold that it is desirable that Parliament should be openly associated with an inquiry of this kind?
Nevertheless, we are glad that a Commission has been appointed and we recognise the distinction of the members invited by the Government to serve upon it. Our attitude to this depends to some extent on the significance of the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I should like to ask him one or two questions about this.
Is it his opinion that the political considerations to which I have referred would be considered more appropriately by the further inquiry which he implies in his statement? What sort of inquiry has he in mind? Is it the idea of the Government that there should be perhaps a Royal Commission, on the lines of the Simon Commission which was set up before the Round Table Conference on India? Can he say when it is likely to take up its duties and to what extent it will be concerned with the whole broad issue of the future of federation? If the right hon. Gentleman would give us some


idea of the position there, I think that we could direct our questions to the other part of his statement more intelligently.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am, of course, aware that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have preferred a Parliamentary Commission. I am grateful for what he said about the quality of those who have kindly consented to serve upon the Commission of Inquiry. Her Majesty's Government thought that it would be more appropriate to appoint a body with members having judicial and expert experience and African experience.
In reply to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, when he reads my answer again I think he will see that I said that we are
considering the best way of preparing for the 1960 review of the Federal Constitution
and that
When Her Majesty's Government are in a position to put forward proposals on this they will do so and they fully understand that Parliament would wish to be associated in an appropriate way with any machinery that might be set up.
That, in my view, would be a more appropriate moment for the undoubtedly proper rights of Parliament and the interest of Members of Parliament to be exercised. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would not ask me to add to this answer now. I am not at this moment in a position to say when this particular process will be set in motion.

Mr. Gaitskell: I had no desire to make things more difficult for the right hon. Gentleman in his discussions with the Federal Government. Nevertheless, I hope that he can at least assure us that there will be a Commission of Inquiry of this kind and that Members of Parliament will participate and play, I hope, a prominent part in its proceedings, as they did in the case of the Simon Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance on that, that would be helpful.
May I ask him whether the Commission of Inquiry into events in Nyasaland will be investigating the statements made in the White Paper, whether, in particular, they will have access to the persons named in the Governor's despatch, and whether those persons will be able to be properly represnted by counsel, if necessary, when they appear before the Commission?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot add to what I have already stated about the thoughts in our minds and about how to equip ourselves and Parliament with the proper information to arrive at the wisest conclusion in October, 1960, which I know we all want to arrive at.
Of course, the information in the White Paper in the despatch from the Governor to me, which was published yesterday, will be very much before the Commission of Inquiry. Exactly who the Commission will see will be for the Commission itself to consider and I do not want at this stage to prejudge that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about people being entitled to be represented by counsel. I do not think that that would be appropriate, because it is not a judicial inquiry in the strict sense of the word. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Leader of the Opposition is nodding, but he has had wide experience of public affairs and I think he agrees with me. It is appropriate that the Chairman should be someone with wide judicial experience, but I do not imagine that there would be provision made for representation by counsel. Matters of that kind must be left to the Commission itself to settle.

Mr. Gaitskell: There is a very unusual circumstance. A White Paper has been published specifically naming certain individuals and implying that they have carried on what I should have thought was a criminal conspiracy. At any rate, some of them are detained at the moment by Her Majesty's Government and, therefore, in these circumstances the Commission of Inquiry appears to take on something of the nature of a tribunal. In this case, I should have thought—would not the right hon. Gentleman agree?—that it was appropriate that they should be represented. Alternatively, is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring proceedings against these individuals, in which event, presumably, the Commission of Inquiry would not investigate the case at all?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Questions of prosecution are for the Attorney-General of Nyasaland. As for the procedure that the Commission will adopt, I am certain that it will take every appropriate step to arrive at the truth and accuracy of the facts put before it.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the persons accused of complicity in these events are now incarcerated in Salisbury Prison, detained without trial? Has he seen the offer made by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia yesterday that these persons may be released, provided the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will accept them? Will he, therefore, take steps to reply at once to the Prime Minister, saying that those Governments will accept them? Does he realise that if he does not do so, responsibility for their not getting a fair trial and remaining incarcerated in Salisbury Prison will be his and Her Majesty's Government's alone?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot add to what I have said about the form in which the Commission and its distinguished Chairman will proceed about this business.
The preservation of law and order in each of the Northern Territories is the responsibility of the Governors of those Territories and I should not dream of issuing directions to them as to how they should exercise that in this difficult situation.

Mr. Callaghan: While the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement is obviously of greater importance, nevertheless should not we be as clear as we can about the Commission of Inquiry? Will Mr. Justice Devlin know, when he starts the investigation, whether the

Attorney-General of Nyasaland proposes to prosecute Hastings Banda and his associates for criminal conspiracy or any other crime? If not, how can Mr. Justice Devlin really proceed about his business in these circumstances? Can the right hon. Gentleman clear that up for us?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot clear that up nor would anyone, when announcing the setting up of a Commission, give a detailed statement of that kind. It was never done when the party opposite was in power and set up a Commission of Inquiry in Africa and elsewhere. I have nothing to add about how the Commission will be conducted, other than what I have already said.

Mr. Grimond: I welcome the appointment of the Commission, but I think that the Secretary of State should give the House an assurance that if the Commission wants to see witnesses who are held in the Federation outside Nyasaland those witnesses will be made available.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am certain that the Commission will not neglect any appropriate way of arriving at the truth.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

[As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) considered.]

New Clause.—(ASSUMPTIONS AS TO PLANNING PERMISSION.)

(1) For the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of any compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies, such one or more of the assumptions mentioned in sections two and three of this Act as are applicable to the relevant land or any part thereof shall be made in ascertaining the value of the relevant interest.


(2) Any planning permission which, in accordance with any of the provisions of those sections, is to be assumed as therein mentioned is in addition to any planning permission which may already be in force at the date of service of the notice to treat.


(3) Nothing in those provisions shall be construed as requiring it to be assumed that planning permission would necessarily be refused for any development, notwithstanding that it is not development for which in accordance with those provisions the granting of planning permission is to be assumed; but, in determining whether planning permission for any development could in any particular circumstances reasonably have been expected to be granted in respect of any land, regard shall be had to any contrary opinion expressed in relation to that land in any certificate issued under the following provisions of this Part of this Act.


(4) For the purposes of any reference in this section, or in section two of this Act, to planning permission which is in force on the date of service of the notice to treat, it is immaterial whether the planning permission in question was granted


(a) unconditionally or subject to conditions, or


(b) in respect of the land in question taken by itself or in respect of an area including that land, or


(c) on an ordinary application or on an outline application or by virtue of a development order,


or is planning permission which, in accordance with any direction or provision given or made by or under any enactment, is deemed to have been granted.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.47 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause, which makes possible the recasting of some parts of the Bill, is designed to be inserted after Clause I to form an introduction to the succeeding Clauses, which deal with assumptions about planning permission. In the Standing Committee, the hon. Members for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) and Acton (Mr. Sparks) drew attention to certain comments made by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. One of the purposes of the proposed new Clause is to deal with the material point that the Institution raised.
Perhaps I might quote from a memorandum which was sent by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to all hon. Members, I believe, and certainly to those who served on the Standing Committee. It said:

It is widely believed—and there is a danger that the legislation might he so construed—that the land will be valued for the specified uses, and for those uses, only, which are in fact permitted or assumed to be permitted. But the market would not necessarily limit its price to the value of the land for such specific uses; the market would have regard to all the potentialities and disabilities of the land, but with the knowledge that certain developments would definitely be permitted. The Institution believes that this is the basis on which 'market value' is intended to be assessed under the Bill, and that the making of certain specific assumptions does not exclude from account other types of development to which the market would have regard. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be made clear in the Bill that this is its effect.
In Standing Committee, when attention was drawn by two hon. Members opposite to this matter, I undertook to consider, before the Report stage, whether anything was needed to remove any possible doubts. We came to that in subsection (3) of the new Clause.
If I may, I shall take the House quickly through the various subsections. Subsection (1) will be recognised as the existing subsection (1) of Clause 2 with one very minor amendment. Associated


with this new Clause are certain Amendments which perhaps could be examined at the same time. The Amendment in my name to Clause 2, page 2, line 26, to leave out subsection (1), is closely associated with subsection (1) of this new Clause, which replaces the old subsection. Subsection (2) of the new Clause makes it clear that assumed planning permissions are in addition to existing planning permissions. Previously, the Government have rested on the argument that the removal of the restrictive provisions in the 1947 Act was a sufficient indication that, in future, existing planning permissions would form part of market value. This subsection (2) puts that matter beyond doubt.
Subsection (3), as I have mentioned, meets the point raised by the Royal Institution. In addition, subsection (3) provides that the contents of a certificate which may be issued under subsection (4, b) of Clause (4) can be used to counter what I might call an over-optimistic view of the potentialities of the land which the market might otherwise entertain. Subsection (4) replaces with certain amendments the later part of subsection (6) of Clause 2. That is associated with the Amendment in my name to page 3, line 40, to leave out subsection (6).
The earlier part of the existing subsection (6) of Clause 2, which, as I say, is being left out, refers to permissions which do not inure for the benefit of the land and is transferred by the Amendment in my name, in page 2, line 42, at the end to insert:
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection, no account shall be taken of any planning permission so granted as not to enure (while the permission remains in force) for the benefit of the land and of all persons for the time being interested therein.
That would provide a new subsection (3) to Clause 2.
I think that it will be found that with this new Clause and the accompanying Amendments which, as it were, clear the decks for it, these early Clauses will read more clearly and more logically. That certainly is the intention of the Government. There is no idea in the mind of the Government, in moving this new Clause, to make any material change from the Bill as it was considered by the Standing Committee, but simply to meet the point made by the Royal

Institution of Chartered Surveyors and, apart from that, somewhat to clarify the arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 8, at the end to insert:
but regard shall he had to the extent to which it is probable that any planning permission, which by virtue of the said sections two and three it is assumed would be granted, would in fact he applied for or exercised, and no account shall be taken of any such planning permission which is inconsistent with and less likely to he exercised than another such planning permission".

Mr. Speaker: Could the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) discuss this Amendment with the next two Amendments, in line 9, to leave out from the beginning to "in" in line 12, and in line 12, at the end to insert:
for the purpose of any of those provisions"?

Mr. Mitchison: If you please, Mr. Speaker. I think that it would be convenient to do so.
I can deal with this matter quite shortly. We regret that the Minister found himself unable to accept an Amendment moved yesterday which would have had the effect of leaving a great deal more to the judgment and experience of surveyors. In rejecting it he told us in his own words that the Government said:
Let us have exact rules throughout, so that everybody may know where he stands.
Accordingly, we look at what he now proposes to see how far that conforms with his own standard. The first comment I have to make is that it is not merely a question of what planning permissions are to be assumed, but of how those assumptions are to be treated. That, I think, is recognised by the general tenor of this new Clause.
We on our side recognise that unless we could have something like the Amendment which was rejected yesterday something of this sort is an improvement in the Bill. On the other hand, when we look at the terms proposed we find some things to object to in them. The first is that there is nothing said for the guidance of valuers about the weight to be attached to the various permissions. If we


are to have a set of rules to govern the whole matter there should be some reference to the element of probability which will come into it. We had the impression during our Committee discussions that what the right hon. Gentleman was putting before the valuers was a market composed on the one side of the willing seller who is mentioned in the second of the rules in the 1919 Act and, on the other side, not of a single buyer, but of a whole stream of buyers.
In some cases that might be the position, but if we are simply to direct people to guide themselves entirely by assumed planning permissions and if, in fact, we are to have exact rules throughout so that everyone may know where he stands, one cannot know where he stands unless the valuers are directed in some form or another to take the element of probability into account. That is what we seek to do by the few words we wish to introduce at the end of line 8.
Similarly, when we come to a conflict between planning permissions, it seems that if the valuer is to assess the matter rightly, having decided which value is the more probable, he can attach weight to them. He cannot give effect, at the same time, to a number of hypothetical planning permissions—for these are all hypothetical planning permissions—if they are inconsistent one with another. There must be some direction given to him in the matter. That is what we suggest in the first Amendment.
The Amendment suggested to line 9—the one to line 12 is a drafting Amendment—raises a slightly different point. We are told, in the new Clause, that
Nothing in those provisions shall be construed as requiring it to be assumed that planning permission would necessarily be refused for any development, notwithstanding that it is not development for which in accordance with those provisions the granting of planning permission is to be assumed".
What by now has happened to the exact rules throughout so that everyone may know where he stands? I am quoting the OFFICIAL REPORT of the speech by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday on the same matter.
… one would think that the only fair thing to do would be to state clearly what permissions it should be assumed he would have obtained.

If, in addition to the permissions we have stated clearly, we open the door to any other permissions which the valuer may think appropriate we are going either back to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman refused yesterday, or making nonsense of the suggestion that these are exact rules throughout.
Lastly, if I may give the right hon. Gentleman one more quotation from himself, still on the same point he said:
It is for these reasons that the Government feel"—
this is a peroration, by the way—
… that they must, in these early Clauses of the Bill, lay down a set of rules which will guide valuers as to the kind of planning permissions they are to assume when land is being compulsorily purchased, and is not changing hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 925–9.]
If one first lays down a collection of assumed permissions and then says that there is nothing whatever to prevent one assuming some other permissions, one is not doing what the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government must do.
Short of a more satisfactory explanation, we cordially dislike that phrase. We feel that it opens the door, and once again opens it in one direction. Whenever the door is opened, it appears to be so that the man whose land is compulsorily acquired should receive more than the ordinary open market value and that the acquiring authority should pay rather more.
We had the impression all through, and it persists in relation to the new Clause, and particularly to the phrase I have mentioned, that, whatever may be said about the intention to arrive at an open market value, not only does the right hon. Gentleman lean in every case against the acquiring authority, but he adds additional provisions which, instead of arriving at the open market value, mean that the acquiring authority and the ratepayers who stand behind the acquiring authority, or in other cases the taxpayers, will be unduly penalised.

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I was hoping that we should have a reply from the Minister. I want to intervene


briefly to support the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
We are dealing with a highly technical subject. In the new Clause moved by the Minister the House is being asked to legislate that certain assumptions should be made about planning permission for the purpose of the assessment of compensation which local authorities will have to pay.
There is very great force in what my hon. and learned Friend said. If we are to embark upon the kind of provision that assumptions should be made by the surveyors and valuers who will have to decide the amount of compensation, it seems to me to be not merely entirely reasonable, but essential, that a direction should be given to them that they should have regard to the kind of planning permission which is probable and that they should disregard, or in other words take no account of, any possible planning permission which would be inconsistent with, and less likely to be exercised than, that planning permission.
In dealing with the Bill we are all anxious to see that justice is done as between owners of property and the local authorities who will have to pay compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of property. In the Bill a great deal depends upon the kind of planning permission to be anticipated. One cannot be dogmatic about it. Therefore, one must make certain assumptions. If we are now, as the Minister concedes, embarking upon legislation which makes certain assumptions about the planning permission which will be allowed, it follows that we must deal with it comprehensively.
If we are to deal with it comprehensively, we should incorporate in the new Clause the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend and should make perfectly clear what surveyors have to take into account and what they have to disregard. If justice is to be done, it is essential that these words should be added to the new Clause. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke: There are two separate, but related, points. I will address myself first to the Amendment that has actually been moved. I listened very carefully to the hon. and learned Member

for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and it seemed to me that the old erronious thought was creeping in that, because planning permissions are cumulative, values based on planning permissions are also cumulative.
That is not the case. Several planning permissions may, as we all know, exist in relation to a piece of land. The granting of a fresh planning permission in no way limits the right to develop in accordance with any of the other planning permissions still in force. When land is valued, the valuer does not add up cumulatively the separate values which the land might have for each of the purposes for which planning permission is available and arrive at a sum total. The market has regard to all the planning permissions available, but the price in the market will be what the land is worth for the most valuable form of development among them. However many planning permissions there are for less valuable forms of development, that will not add anything to the price and will not raise the value of the land.
It is rather as if a number of coins were put in front of somebody and he was told that he could choose any one he wished. Obviously, under those conditions he would choose the coin of highest value. If there was a half crown among them, he would choose the half crown. However many halfpennies, pennies and sixpences were added to the pile, he would still choose the half crown and he would still not take anything more than a half crown, because he would be permitted to take only one of the coins.
The question which form of development will bring the highest price is in every individual case decided by reference to the circumstances of the individual site. It will depend on the size and shape of the land, on its situation, on the services available and on the demand which may exist in the area for land for that purpose.
Taking the country at large, land for which there is planning permission for industrial development normally commands a higher price than land for which there is no planning permission for industry, but for which there is planning permission for housing development. While that is true for the country at large, nevertheless there are some areas where


it is not true. In areas where there is practically no demand for industrial land and nobody wants it, planning permission for industrial use has very little value. Normally, in such a case, if there were a demand for residential accommodation, planning permission for housing would give the land a greater value than any planning permission for industrial use.
Therefore, what it amounts to is that the likelihood of any planning permission being applied for or exercised is already taken into account in assessing market value. There is no need for the additional complications which the first Amendment would introduce. It certainly would not reduce the compensation payable, as I think the hon. and learned Member may have had in mind. It would add a complication to the Bill—and I submit to the House a needless complication—and, as the Opposition have already said that this Clause may be somewhat bewildering, I can only say that, if anything, any bewilderment would be increased should words like these be written into the Bill.
The hon. Member referred, at the same time, to the second and third Amendments—as he said, the third is a purely drafting Amendment. Their main purpose is to delete the opening words of subsection (3) and, indeed, to fly in the face of the advice that we have all received from so respected a body as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I take it that the Opposition's argument is that, as it stands in the new Clause, subsection (3) might give too much encouragement to valuers to assume that there is something else that they might take into account.
I assure the House that this criticism will not be justified, more particularly in view of the second part of the subsection, to which I specifically referred when I moved the new Clause. All that the subsection does is to ensure that the valuer will be able to do what he normally does in assessing market values; that is to say, to take into account all the potentialities and, of course, all the disadvantages that the land might have.
If the Amendment were accepted, that would be left open to doubt. Indeed, as it seems to me, the Bill would be back in the state in which it was when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors criti-

cised it. That criticism appeared to be valid—it was certainly supported in Committee by hon. Members—and the Government have addressed themselves to putting the matter beyond all doubt. I have no doubt at all that the new Clause as it stands is more likely to enable a valuer to arrive at a figure that is the true market value of the land in the open market than it would be if this Amendment to leave out part of subsection (3) were accepted.

Mr. Mitchison: That was a magnificently contradictory answer. In his reply to the second Amendment, the Minister explained that it was advisable to make clear that valuers could do what they normally would. In dealing with the first group of Amendments, where exactly the same state of affairs seems to me to prevail, he objected to its being made clear that they could do what the normally would. He should reconcile his attitudes to the two points raised.
Moreover, on the first Amendment—which is, perhaps, the more important—he told us, first, that if one had to choose between a number of coins, one would take the most valuable. He then explained that this would apply, for instance, to industrial use and to use for building houses; but that it did not follow that one would attach much importance to the more valuable use—in his own simile, the more valuable coin—in cases where it was unlikely that that use would come into being.
The right hon. Gentleman will himself see that instead of taking the analogy of a number of coins he should have taken the analogy of a number of Premium Savings Bonds. Let us suppose that there is one Premium Bond of £100, the chance of winning which was dependent on a single draw, and that there was another of £10 that one might get on any of not 10 but 11 draws. A sensible man would take the £10 bond rather than the £100 Premium bond for he would have a better chance of making some money.
That is exactly our point in the first Amendment. If the Minister says, in effect, that the valuers would do it in any case, then—apart from drawing attention to the contradiction that he has just enunciated, which is exactly the opposite to his reply to the first point — I repeat that the danger of setting out in a Statute a whole series of extremely


complicated assumptions is that valuers may think that that is the end of the matter, and they will be led into that erroneous conclusion by the right hon. Gentleman's own words, which I have just quoted and will not repeat.
The Minister quite clearly stated yesterday that this was to be a comprehensive set of rules. Accordingly, if there is something not in those rules, valuers may be tempted to look at his remarks and say, "True, we should have attended to that in normal practice, but we need not do so now because the Minister himself told us that we need not look beyond the rules." It is for that reason that in this general Clause, which is to cover the application of the whole set of rules, we think it desirable—indeed, necessary — that this particular and, if I may say so, very obvious matter should be stated.
There is no real dispute that the valuer would have to do it, but the right hon. Gentleman objects, for some reason, to stating it. We do not think that a good reason. We feel that there is a very real danger that if the Minister is allowed to persist in that attitude, an injustice that he might not intend may result.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I should like further information on the application of subsection (3) of the new Clause. In our discussions yesterday about floating value, the Minister apprehended that I and other hon. Members are worried about the cost of a number of parcels of land being sold for, say, residential purposes. In the development of that area some space will have to he marked out, or may well be permitted in any plan for shops.
My fear yesterday, when we were talking about the new Clause by which we proposed a method of global compensation that we thought would be fairer, was that, under the present scheme, every parcel of land will attract to itself some potential of the value as a shopping site. I gathered from the Minister that that fear was taken care of, to some extent, by subsection (3) of this new Clause. As this is an important matter, and one that causes a lot of concern outside, perhaps the Minister will show us how the subsection deals with that problem.

Mr. Brooke: During our discussion in Committee yesterday, I invited the hon. Member's attention to this subsection (3). I mentioned the positive part of it, whereas I think that he was really more concerned with the active part—

Mr. Skeffington: Yes.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has in mind the case where land is to be used for housing purposes. Everyone with any practical experience knows that if the area is of any size one does not confine it solely to houses. One may need shops, or other facilities that any ordinary community of any magnitude would require. The value of the land should take that possibility into account. At the same time, it should not be possible for the owner of any individual site to claim that his site, quite definitely, will be the one to be selected for the more valuable purpose. If he were to do that, someone else might do it and we should be right back to the conception of floating value.
The first part of subsection (3) introduces into the process of arriving at market value an indication that the valuer can pay attention to the possibility that, although the land as a whole is to be developed for housing purposes, some more valuable uses may be permitted within the land. Then the valuer will have to judge what are the odds in favour or against that piece of land being selected for the more valuable use.
The effect of that is that nobody gets the full amount of the more valuable use. He may get some element of it, but it will be only a percentage of the whole, related to his proportionate chance of getting the more valuable use on his land.
As I sought to explain, the second part of subsection (3) is the safeguarding part. It provides that a certificate issued under Clause 4 (4, b) can be utilised to counter an over-optimistic claim as to the potentialities of the land. That is the way it is done in this subsection. I think it will be found to be practical.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause: —

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 225.

Division No. 72.]
AYES
[4.21 p.m.


Alnsley, J. W.
Healey, Denis
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, S, S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Probert, A. R.


Benson, Sir George
Holman, P.
Randall, H. E.


Beswick, Frank
Holmes, Horace
Rankin, John


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Houghton, Douglas
Reeves, J.


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Reld, William


Blenkinsop, A,
Hoy, J. H.
Reynolds, G. W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyd, T. C.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brockway, A. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, B.
Royle, C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn amp; St.Pnes,S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Short, E. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Callaghan, L. J.
Key, Rt. Hon, C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Carmichael, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Champlon, A. J.
Lee, Frederiok (Newton)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Chapman, W. D.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Coldrick, W.
Lewis, Arthur
Sparks, J. A.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Logan, D. G.
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steele, T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Stonehouse, John


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McCann, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MaoColl, J. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Dayies, Harold (Leek)
MacDermot, Niall
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Deer, G.
Mclnnes, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, S. T.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McLeavy, Frank
Sylvester, G. O.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Simon
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Timmons, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Tomney, F.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Viant, S. P.


Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, D.


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Foot, D. M.
Monslow, W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, David (Neath)


Gooch, E. G.
Moss R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oram A. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oswald, T.
Woof, R. E.


Hale, Leslie
Owen, W. J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J.
Zilllacus, K.


Hannan, W.
Paton, John



Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hastings, S.
Peart, T. P.
Mr. J. Taylor and


Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, N.
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cooper, A. E.


Aithen, W. T.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bidgood, J. c.
Corfield, F. V.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Bishop, F. P.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Arbuthnot, John
Bonham Carter, Mark
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Ashton, H.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Cunningham, Knox


Atkins, H. E.
Bryan, P.
Currie, G. B. H.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Davidson, Viscountess


Barter, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Batsford, Brian
Channon, H. P. G.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Chichester-Clark, R.
de Ferrantl, Basil


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Cole, Norman
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cooke, Robert
Doughty, C. J. A.







Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Pitman, I. J.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Duncan, Sir James
Kershaw, J. A.
Pott, H. P.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kirk, P. M.
Powell, J. Enoch


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leavey, J. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Erroll, F. J.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E.A. H.
Profumo, J. D.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Redmayne, M.


Fell, A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Rees-Davles, W. R.


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Ridsdale, j. E.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robertson, Sir David


Freeth, Denzil
Longden, Gilbert
Robson Brown, Sir William


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Loveys, Walter H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Gammans, Lady
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Tony
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Russell, R. S.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McAdden, S. J.
Sharples, R. C.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Glover, D.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Speir, R. M.


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Godber, J. B.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gower, H. R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Maddan, Martin
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Green, A.
Maitland, Cdr.J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Grlmond, J.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Storey, S.


Grlmston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Studholme, Sir Henry


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col R. G.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gurden, Harold
Marshall, Douglas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mathew R.
Teeling, W.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Temple, John M.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mawby, R. L.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maydon, Lt. Comdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hay, John
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Molson Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Moore, Sir Thomas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nabarro G. D. N.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hesketh, R. F.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Neave, Airey
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nicholls, Harmar
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Wade, D. W.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. amp; Chr'ch)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Hobson, John(Warwlck amp; Leam'gt'n)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wall, Patrick


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oakshott, H. D.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Holt, A. F.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hornby, R. P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Webster, David


Howard, Hon. Creville (St. Ives)
Osborne, C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Page, R. G.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hutohison, Mlohael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Partridge E.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Iromonger, T. L.
Peel, W. J.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, J. W. W.



Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Mr. Brooman-White and




Mr. Whitelaw.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 26, at the end to insert:
Provided that, if such planning permission was granted subject to conditions, nothing in this subsection shall have effect to permit those conditions to be disregarded in the assessment of compensation.
This is a very short and simple matter. I understand subsection (4) of the new Clause to refer to the question whether or not a planning permission is in existence. It is a guide to the cases in which a planning permission exists. But it mentions the possibility of a conditional planning permission, and its words are a little open to misconstruction. It says:

For the purposes of any reference in this section, or in section two of this Act, to planning permission which is in force on the date of service of the notice to treat, it is immaterial whether the planning permission in question was granted unconditionally or subject to conditions.
I think that I understand what is intended by that reference. I think it means that we are to treat a planning permission as being in force whether or not it was conditional. But the language is open to some misunderstanding. Although, for the purpose of its existence, that is no doubt right, we must not, at the same time, treat a conditional planning permission for all purposes as being the same as an unconditional


planning permission. In particular, when, in assessing compensation, we have to consider the value of that planning permission, we must give it a value which is appropriate to it as a conditional planning permission and not a value appropriate to it as an unconditional planning permission.
The right hon. Gentleman always accuses me of an inveterate error if I suggest that planning permissions tend to have some plus value in the matter of the assessment of compensation, but even if, by some inversion particularly dear to the right hon. Gentleman, they were to have a minus value, the result would be the same. A conditional planning permission should be treated as what it is for the purpose of assessing compensation, and that is what the Amendment seeks to provide.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Amendment ought to commend itself to the House for two reasons, one a reason of substance and the other a drafting reason. Both have been indicated by my hon. and learned Friend. The Amendment is essential to the sensible drafting of the Clause. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, subsection (4, a) provides that for the purposes of the Clause it is immaterial whether planning permission was granted unconditionally or subject to conditions. If we take that as it stands, it could mean that the direction to the person charged with the responsibility of assessing compensation is that he is entitled to ignore the conditions. That is one possible interpretation of the paragraph, and I am not sure that it is not the only one.
This seems to make nonsense of the provisions of the Clause. I understand that it is the Minister's intention that if a conditional planning permission is given the valuer should have regard to the conditions, and, if so, it would seem essential that he should say so. I should think that the only way in which he could say so would be by accepting the Amendment.
The reason of substance for which I urge the Minister to accept the Amendment is that in town and country planning matters it is notorious that planning permissions are very often given subject to conditions. Experience shows that on

some occasions those conditions are observed but on other occasions disregarded. It is obviously very difficult for the Minister, his Department or local authorities to busy themselves with ensuring that conditions are always observed.
Although the conditions attaching to planning permissions are frequently disregarded in practice, there is no reason for surveyors or valuers to assume that they will be so disregarded. In fact, it is essential that in assessing compensation valuers should act on the assumption that conditions attached to planning permissions will be observed. If that is to be the canon upon which compensation is to be calculated, it seems essential that it should be incorporated in the express provisions of the Bill, and I submit that that can be done only by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke: When I first saw the Amendment I was puzzled as to the reason for it, because there is nothing in subsection (4, a) or, indeed, in any part of the subsection, which would have the effect of allowing conditions attached to planning permissions to be disregarded in the assessment of compensation. I can certainly give the House the assurance that it is not intended that there should be such a disregard.
I listened carefully to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and I think that he may have misread the subsection. It does not say, as he fears it may do, that if planning permission is granted subject to conditions it may be treated as though it had been granted unconditionally. What it says is:
For the purposes of any reference in this section, or in section two of this Act, to planning permission which is in force on the date of the service of the notice to treat, it is immaterial whether the planning permission in question was granted unconditionally or subject to conditions …".
Whether it was unconditional or subject to conditions, it is a planning permission for the purposes of the Clause.
The references to planning permissions in force occur in subsection (2) and in Clause 2 (2). In the new Clause, the effect of subsection (4, a) is to make assumed permissions additional to existing planning permissions, whether they are conditional or unconditional.
The effect of Clause 2 (2), when read with paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of


the new Clause, is that planning permission will not be assumed under subsection (2) for the development for which the land is being acquired if there is in existence an actual permission for that development, whether that development is conditional or unconditional, unless the permission is a personal one—this is dealt with in the Amendment on page 2, line 42. But there is nothing in the new Clause which says or implies that a condition attached to an actual planning permission may be disregarded. I give the hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance.
I promise the hon. and learned Member that this matter has been considered very carefully and that there is no need for the Amendment in order to secure that the Clause means what I have described it to mean.

Mr. Mitchison: We are not entirely satisfied with the Minister's answer, but I agree that there is some doubt in the matter. I gather that he has been advised that the effect of the references as they stand would not be altered by this proviso. I am not prepared to divide the House on what seems to me to be a rather small point. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw 'he Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(APPLICATION OF ACT TO CROWN.)

(1) The provisions of Part 1 of this Act, and of the First, Second, Third and Sixth Schedules thereto, apply in relation to the acquisition of interest in land (whether compulsorily or by agreement) by government departments, being public authorities possessing compulsory purchase powers, as they apply in relation to the acquisition of interests in land by such authorities which are not government departments; and any reference in this Act to a compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies, or to a sale of an interest in land by agreement in circumstances corresponding to such an acquisition, shall be construed accordingly.

(2) The provisions of sections thirty and thirty-one of this Act shall apply in relation to any application for planning permission relating to Crown land as they apply in relation to applications for planning permission relating to any other land.

(3) The rights conferred by section thirty-two of this Act shall be exercisable by a person

who (within the meaning of that section) is a resident owner-occupier of a hereditament which is Crown land, in the same way as they are exercisable in respect of a hereditament which is not Crown land, and the provisions of that section and of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall apply accordingly.

(4) In so far as any power conferred by section six of the Town Development Act, 1952, is exercisable in respect of Crown land, that power as extended by section thirty-four of this Act shall be exercisable in respect of Crown land to the like extent.

(5) Paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act shall apply in relation to an interest in land which is a Duchy interest as it applies in relation to an interest in land which is a private interest.

(6) In this section "Crown land" has the same meaning as in section eighty-seven of the Act of 1947, and "Duchy interest" and "private interest" have the same meanings as in section sixty-one of the Act of 1954.

(7) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to section six of the Town Development Act, 1952, there shall be substituted a reference to section thirteen of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, for any reference to section thirty-four of this Act there shall be substituted a reference to section thirty-five of this Act, for any reference to section eighty-seven of the Act of 1947 there shall be substituted a reference to section eighty-three of the Scottish Act of 1947, and for any reference to the Act of 1954 there shall be substituted a reference to the Scottish Act of 1954.—[Mr. Bevins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss at the same time the Government Amendment to page 54, line 30, to leave out Clause 39, to which it is related.

Mr. Mitchison: We on this side have no objection.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew) indicated assent.

Mr. Bevins: This matter was touched upon by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) in the course of one of his earlier speeches, and later my right hon. Friend informed the Committee that he intended to replace the general statement in Clause 39, that
This Act binds the Crown".
by specific provisions dealing with the application to the Crown of certain parts of the Bill. The Amendment deletes Clause 39 altogether and replaces it with


the new Clause. That sets out in detail the way in which certain parts of the Bill will apply to the Crown. It implements the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in Committee.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: If the Minister had not become irritated and moved the Closure to stop me speaking on Clause 15, I would not have had to make on Clause 17 the speech that I was intending to make on Clause 15. If I had not had to make it on Clause 17, I would not have had to refer to the Crown to keep in order. If I had not referred to the Crown, the Minister would not have removed Clause 39 and sought to insert the new Clause. As far as I can calculate, the net result is that the number of words used has been increased ten times. There may be a slight difference either way, but as far as I can work out the new Clause is ten times longer than Clause 39. I am, therefore, wondering what I have done and what precisely is in these words that were not in the original Clause 39.
If the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary propose to have this glorious frolic of drafting and to produce this wonderful verbiage, why did they leave in Clause 17? Could not they have thrown Clause 17 with the new Clause for good measure and got rid of another Clause?
It is odd that we have this long Clause incorporating the Crown and then, perched on a shelf, as it were, Clause 17, dealing with a particular point. That was the main object of my criticism at the time. However, in so far as I have been able to understand the Clause, and in so far as it does not refer to Scotland —because I would not venture to express any point on whether the Bill is good or bad for Scotland—it seems to me that this proposal does not make the matter much worse than when we started. I therefore do not advise my hon. Friend to object to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2.—(GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AS TO PLANNING PERMISSION.)

Mr. Bevins: I think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will remember that at an

earlier stage of our consideration of the Bill he took the opportunity of pointing out that Clause 2 (5) failed to make clear that a certificate could have conditions attached to it.
I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I beg to move in page 2, line 26, to leave out subsection (1).

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Brooke: When moving the first of the new Clauses, I referred to three Amendments which were linked with it, and I think that I explained all of them at that time.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 42, at end insert:
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection, no account shall be taken of any planning permission so granted as not to enure (while the permission remains in force) for the benefit of the land and of all persons for the time being interested therein. —[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I may be allowed to express our grateful thanks, not for the way in which the Amendment to line 26 was moved, but for the substance of it.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, at the end to insert:
as being development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted:
Provided that if, in any such certificate, it is indicated that, in the opinion of the authority issuing the certificate, any such planning permission would only have been granted—

(a) subject to conditions specified in the certificate, or
(b) at a future time so specified, or
(c) both subject to conditions so specified and at a future time so specified,
the assumption shall be that planning permission for development of that class would be granted, in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, but would only be granted subject to those conditions, or at that future time, or both subject to those conditions and at that future time, as the case may be".
As I was saying, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out at an earlier stage that Clause 2 (5) did not make it clear that a certificate could have conditions attached to it. Later, Clause 4 (5) was amended to allow a certificate to be issued on a deferred basis. The Amendment makes it possible for planning permission, which is assumed under Clause


2 (5) by reference to a certificate, to be conditional or deferred if that is specified in the certificate. I hope that that will commend itself to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. MacColl: I express my doubts about this matter not only in regard to the certificate but also in regard to the same point that arises in connection with the Amendment to Clause 3, page 5, line 31; at the end to insert:
and
(b) if, in accordance with any map or statement comprised in the current development plan, it is indicated that any such planning permission would be granted only at a future time, then (without prejudice to the preceding paragraph) the assumption shall be that the planning permission in question would be granted at the time when, in accordance with the indications in the plan, that permission might reasonably be expected to be granted.
which is another case where the concept of a future permission is being introduced into the Bill. Certainly, that case and, I suspect, this one also are the result of concessions that were made on Clause 4 under pressure from the back benches of the party opposite in Committee.
I have never been happy about this use of future planning permission. As I ventured to point out upstairs, in the 1954 Act it was made perfectly clear that permission which was post-dated could not be given. In other words, if it was not an immediate permission, the correct procedure was to refuse the permission on the ground that it was premature. It seems to me to be dangerous to start compensating people for what is supposed to be market value on a speculation about a permission that will happen anything up to twenty years ahead—which was the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman.
One sees the difficulties in which a planning authority will be placed, because it will be asked what are the prospects of development in twenty years' time. That would be an extremely difficult question to answer. It may well depend upon activities by the planning authority itself. The development of public services—of transport, drainage or whatever it may be—might appear to make it possible that development will take place a fairly long time ahead. Therefore, the planning authority would have to say, "Yes, as far as we can tell, we would give permission at a future

time for this development." That would go to inflate the market price, but at the same time, the only circumstances in which the planning authority would be able to give the permission would be if already it or some other public authority had indulged in activity which had increased the value of the land.
In other words, our old friend betterment is creeping in again to haunt us. What is being presented to the vendor of the land is uncovenanted betterment, which is extremely speculative. It is not even betterment which has taken place, but betterment which might take place in the future should certain hypothetical circumstances occur. This places a difficult decision on the planning authority and presents difficulties to the valuer. One thing that we can be sure about is that it will present a nice little bonus to the property owner. Therefore, I regard it with considerable suspicion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 40, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 3.—(SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS AS TO PLANNING PERMISSION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN LAND COMPRISED IN DEVELOPMENT PLANS.)

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, to leave out first "be" and to insert "have been".
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could also take the Amendments in page 4, line 42, page 5, line 31, page 7, line 15, and page 56, line 15.
This group of Amendments is designed wholly to meet a valid point raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Their purpose is to make it clear that the planning permissions to be assumed under subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause by reference to allocations in a development plan are for development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted if the relevant land were not proposed to be acquired by any public authority.
In the Bill as it stands, the phrase is
development for which planning permission might reasonably be expected to be granted".
In Committee, the hon. and learned Member pointed out that at the time


when notice to treat is served, planning permission could not reasonably be expected for anything except what the acquiring authority proposed to do. It would, indeed, be nonsense if planning permission were at that stage expected to be granted for something quite different.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his suggestion, which definitely improves the Bill. This new wording is in line with our conception of a fair market value as the price which an owner could reasonably have expected to receive for his land if there had been no proposal for its purchase by a public authority. I assure the hon. and learned Member that though there are subsequent drafting Amendments the sole effective change which these five Amendments make is to satisfy the point which he reasonably raised in Committee.

Mr. Mitchison: Suspicious though I am by temperament, I can do no more than express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the need for this series of glorified drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, at the end to insert:
in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be".
This Amendment might, perhaps, be taken with the identical Amendment in page 4, line 42.
These two Amendments are, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to the last series, rather glorified drafting Amendments, but they meet a point of a little obscurity that was raised by the hon and learned Member at an earlier stage. It was suggested that the phrase in Clause 3
development for which planning permission might reasonably be expected to be granted
was meant to relate to the relevant land, as, clearly, it is intended to relate. The effects of these Amendments are to make that clear beyond all doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 42, leave out first "be" and insert "have been".

In line 42, at end insert:
in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be".—[Mr. Brooke.]

5.0 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, in page 4, line 45, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and to insert:
it shall be assumed that planning permission would be granted, in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be, for any development for the purposes of a use of the relevant land or that part thereof falling within the planned range of uses (whether it is the use which, in accordance with the particulars and proposals comprised in the current development plan in relation to the area in question, is indicated in the plan as the proposed use of the relevant land or that part thereof, or is any other use falling within the planned range of uses) being development for which, in the circumstances specified in the next following subsection, planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be".
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discuss the Amendments in page 5, lines 15, 19 and 24.
These are mainly drafting Amendments, designed to meet the criticisms of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who thought, in particular, that the meaning of the words "take into account" in this context were not sufficiently clear. The Amendment removes any possibility of doubt as to their intention. The planning permission to be assumed will be planning permission for such use or uses within the range of uses planned for the area of comprehensive development as could reasonably have been expected to be granted had the area not been an area of comprehensive development and had no development in accordance with the plan taken place. The first Amendment introduces the phrase "planned range of uses" and the fourth Amendment defines that. The combined effect of those two Amendments makes no change whatever in the intention as explained by my right hon. Friend at length in Committee. We have done our best in this Amendment to meet the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman.
The Amendment to page 5, line 19, goes perhaps a little further than pure drafting. This is designed to make it clear that in considering what planning permissions should be assumed, the valuer is not only to disregard the fact that the land to be acquired is in an area defined as an area of comprehensive development but also is to disregard any particulars or proposals comprised in


the plan relating to the land to be acquired. In brief, this means that the valuer will have regard within the planned range of uses to the uses for which permission might have been given had the lay-out of the area remained substantially as it was, and had there been no question of comprehensive redevelopment.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I welcome a Scottish Minister at the Dispatch Box to deal with matters relating to Scotland. This is the first time we have had the pleasure of an explanation from the hon. Gentleman. I was pleased to hear him say that this Amendment is designed to clarify the Clause, because I have been spending some time trying to find out what it means, and not being a lawyer, I found it difficult.
I wonder whether all this verbiage is necessary when we come to deal with the intelligent people of Scotland, though I admit it might be necessary in England. Here we are dealing with intelligent men who, one assumes, do not want verbiage put into the Bill. Why, for instance, in the third line of the first Amendment, must we have "as the case may be"? What difference would it make if those words were left out? I have read this Amendment three or four times and I can see no difference in the meaning if those words were omitted.
I am surprised that the Solicitor-General for Scotland should have such a poor opinion of his own profession as to think that the Scottish legal fraternity would not be capable of interpreting this Amendment without the interpolation of those words. I can see the right hon. and learned Gentleman getting into serious trouble in Parliament House for treating his fellow-lawyers in this manner.
Then there is the long interpolation in brackets in the centre of the Amendment. Why is that necessary? It might quite well be omitted, and so might the final "as the case may be", which occurs about nine times in the Clause, for what reason I do not know. Maybe the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can tell us; or his right hon. and learned Friend, from whom we have not yet had a word, might be prepared to give us a lesson in legal terminology. We are always prepared to sit at the feet of learned gentlemen in order to extend our knowledge of Scottish law, though I must

admit that we do not seem to extend it far.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant) rose—

Mr. Willis: The Solicitor-General for Scotland, as usual, is bursting to give us the benefit of his advice. We shall be delighted to receive it, so I will let him explain why we must have all this for Scotland. The English can put what they like into their own legislation, but we should treat Scotland rather more respectfully.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am always glad to have compliments on the intelligence of the Scots from an Englishman, and I will try to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. The point of "as the case may be" is that under subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3 we have to make an assumption in respect of the relevant, or part of the relevant, land if either the relevant land or the particular part of it complies with a specified condition. The words "as the case may be" have been inserted, and are necessary, to make it clear that when the condition applies to the relevant land the assumption also applies to the whole of the relevant land, but where it applies only to part the assumption applies only to part. If the hon. Gentleman will read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, I think he will understand the point.

Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the sentence, omitting the words "as the case may be" and then tell me what is the difference?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The difference would be this. If those words were omitted, the assumption might be applied by a skilful lawyer to the whole of the relevant land when, in fact, it applied to part only.

Mr. William Ross: Really.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am always obliged to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for his legal advice. I merely give him my opinion for what it is worth, and I know at what he values it. There would be doubt about these words in a case where the assumption applied only to part of the relevant land since it could be applied also to the whole.
As regards the words in brackets, brevity is not always clarity, although I find in listening sometimes to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that the opposite is sometimes the fact. The words in brackets have been inserted for clarity, and I think they are necessary.

Mr. Ross: There is one thing about the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he is always provocative. I had intended by my silence to try to assist the Committee to get through the Bill reasonably quickly. When I heard the Joint Under-Secretary of State say that this Amendment and the consequential series of Amendments are due to something I said inadvertently in the Standing Committee, I wondered whether he had paid attention to the Amendments I had put down which were not selected, for he went out of his way to give us the perfect snub by including the words "as the case may be", not once but twice in his Amendment, accepting suggestions I had made in the Committee.
Then the Solicitor-General for Scotland tried to justify not the Amendment, but the inclusion of those words. He said he gave us his advice for what I think it is worth. He knows quite well what I think his advice is worth—absolutely nothing. I doubt if any person could be in doubt, even if the words were left out, who referred to subsection (2):
… in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof …
What dubiety is there in respect of that? Is it that some learned lawyer in Scotland will think that it applies to the whole of the land and not only to the relevant land, or part thereof, so that we must have this importing of the words "as the case may be"? We were very concerned, and we are very willing to learn in Scotland, but when we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government saying this:
… if we were to import into the drafting of all these Bills words which are really quite superfluous and unnecessary in the circumstances we should go on and on to no great purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 29th January, 1959; c. 431.]
we thought that we were being helpful in suggesting that the Government should take out words which are unnecessary and superfluous. Yet the Government put them in and tell us that the Amendment

is due to something which we put forward. If the Parliamentary Secretary had paid attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and myself had said on Clause 3, he would have left Scotland out of it altogether and would have satisfied us, but we are glad to know that he was listening to one part of the Committee stage to what we were submitting to him.

Mr. Willis: May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether when a Bill containing the Scottish provisions in this Bill goes before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in order to apply to Scotland it will be possible for that Committee to cut out some of these unnecessary words?

Mr. Macpherson: If it would alter the sense, then, of course, the words would not be taken out.

Mr. Ross: There is no sense in it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 15, leave out "paragraph (b) of".

In line 19, at end insert:
no particulars or proposals relating to any land in that area had been comprised in the plan, and".

In line 24, at end insert:
and in that subsection 'the planned range of uses' means the range of uses which, in accordance with the particulars and proposals comprised in the current development plan in relation to the area in question, are indicated in the plan as proposed uses of land in that area."—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, to leave out from "with" to "it" in line 26 and to insert:
any of the preceding subsections.
This is another Amendment put forward in order to meet a point raised by the Opposition in Committee. Its purpose is to apply subsection (6) of Clause 3 to subsection (1) as well as to subsections (2), (3) and (4). I remember giving an undertaking in the Committee that I would consider carefully whether that subsection might not be applied to subsection (1) also. It was originally considered when the Bill was drafted that where a site was defined in a development plan the description in the plan gave a sufficiently specific indication of what would be permitted without further qualification.
On further consideration, it is possible to see that conditions relating to, for


instance, access to roads or the height of buildings might be imposed on the grant of permission for development for which a site is defined in a plan, and it seems reasonable therefore to allow such conditions to be assumed. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who was, I think, the first to raise the matter in Committee.

Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, after "mentioned", to insert "(a)".
This is a paving Amendment for the Amendment of substance which is the next one on the Notice Paper—in line 31, to insert the new paragraph (b). These Amendments provide for an assumption of deferred planning permission where it is indicated, by the programme map or by information contained in the written statement forming part of a development plan, that planning permission for development would be granted, but only at some future time and not immediately.
In such a case, the assumption is to be that planning permission would be granted at such future time as might reasonably be expected from the indications in the development plan. Those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recollect that this point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) during the discussion on Clause 3. I think it was generally agreed that the Bill did require Amendment, and there was time to insert the necessary Amendment in Clause 4. Subsection (5) of Clause 4 contains the Amendment which was made in Committee, and it was stated on behalf of the Government at that time that it would be necessary to pick up the point in Clause 3. That is what we are doing now.

Mr. McColl: When the right hon. Gentleman says that this was a matter which received general agreement in the Committee, I think that is a staggering overstatement. I thought for one moment that it might have happened during one of my unfortunate absences from the Committee, but I can distinctly remember

speaking on it, and I think we divided on it.
I am still not clear about it, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has helped the House at all about how we discount the value of future planning permissions of this sort. I will put the point to him again. If the planning authority is asked whether it would give planning permission in fifteen years' time for a development on a particular site—it woes not matter whether it is house building or commercial building, because it makes no difference to the argument—and it has a reasonable suspicion that by then the public activities of the authority will have begun to develop in that area, and, therefore, it would not be likely any longer to be a premature development, as the services would be there, in the first place, what sort of odds is the authority to accept when it decides whether to say "Yes" or "No"?
Secondly, how is the valuer to discount the fact that it is hypothetical, that it is in the future, and that it is a development which is only possible if the public authorities develop in that particular direction, and if a private developer on his own could not possibly do it? These are the problems presented, and that was the problem which we raised upstairs, and the right hon. Gentleman has not helped us by giving us some picture of how this will work out in practice.

Mr. Brooke: I do not think this presents the valuer with any problem of any great difficulty. The fact is that there is no planning permission to be assumed for immediate development, and therefore it would be wrong to value the land as if there were. If there is an element of addition to the market value which the land would have otherwise—an element of additional value given by the assumed deferred planning permission —then that must be discounted to the extent that development cannot take place immediately. If the development could be immediate and could start forthwith, any increase of market value in the land thereby would accrue in full, but quite clearly if that additional value could not be secured for five years, the amount that should be added to the market value to take account of it must be less than it would be if the development could be immediate.
It will be further reduced if the development cannot take place for ten years, and even further reduced if it cannot take place for fifteen years. Indeed, if it went into the distant future, the additional value accruing therefrom would probably be nil or negligible, because people would be unlikely to buy land unless they were disposed to look very far ahead at the prospect of being able to carry out some developments in their children's or children's children's time.
Fortunately, the ordinary development plan does not extend for more than twenty years at the maximum, so we do not have to peer into the distant future. I assure hon. Members that it does not present the valuer with any unaccustomed obstacle if he is asked to put a value on a planning permission for development which cannot accrue immediately. That is a perfectly straightforward problem of valuation and we are not making the task of a valuer any more difficult by the Amendment.
If I went too far and suggested that there was a greater degree of amiability in Standing Committee about the corresponding Amendments to Clause 4 than there actually was, I am sorry. In Standing Committee we were amicable about some things and less amicable about others. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) asked me about the practicability of this proposal. I assure him that it would not present any difficulties to the ordinary experienced valuer.

Mr. Mitchison: This matter was discussed at considerable length in Committee when we dealt with Clause 4, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) made some very trenchant and forceful criticisms, as shown by col. 491 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. We held and still hold those objections, and we divided on the Amendment to Clause 4. The debate was of such a character that in the course of discussion there was for a time no quorum in the Committee.
However, the Amendment was put into Clause 4 and the right hon. Gentleman said at the time that if it went into Clause 4 it would also have to go into Clause 3, which we are now considering. Whatever our objections were and are, it is now in Clause 4 and it is obvious that there must

be something corresponding in Clause 3. Although we do not like it in either of those places, we recognise that it must be either absent or present in both places.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 31, at end insert:
and
(b) if, in accordance with any map or statement comprised in the current development plan, it is indicated that any such planning permission would be granted only at a future time, then (without prejudice to the preceding paragraph) the assumption shall be that the planning permission in question would be granted at the time when, in accordance with the indications in the plan, that permission might reasonably be expected to be granted".

In line 31, at end insert:
(7) Any reference in this section to development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted is a reference to development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted if no part of the relevant land were proposed to be acquired by any authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32 to leave out "section" and to insert "Part of this Act".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that with this we can discuss the Amendments in page 5, line 44 to leave out from "area" to end of line 2 on page 6 and to insert:
defined in the current development plan as the site of proposed development or shown in the current development plan as allocated primarily for a specified use or specified uses, or where any question arises as to the development for which planning permission might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted";
and in page 13, line 15, to leave out from "section" to "the" in line 16, which is consequential.

Mr. MacColl: The effective Amendment is that in page 5, line 44.
This is a complicated Amendment which at various times in the last few minutes I have not been sure that I understood myself. I do not blame myself for that, since it is complicated because of the obscure drafting of Clause 4. Clause 4 deals with those cases in which one or other of the parties applies to the local planning authority for a certificate about appropriate alternative developments. It is interesting to note in what cases that applies. The Bill approaches


that question by the process of defining the cases in which it is not applied. The Amendment is restricted in the sense that it reduces the force of Clause 4 (1, b) and, by narrowing that, widens the broad principle of the cases in which an application may be made. That is complicated, but it arises by the round about way of approaching this question.
What are the cases in which no application can be made for a certificate? First, in paragraph (a), is the case of comprehensive development, which is a term of art well understood among planners. An area of comprehensive development is an area in which there is to take place comprehensive development under a comprehensive plan covering the whole area. The precise limit of comprehensive development is a subject about which we have argued and will later argue again.
The second case of exclusion from application for a certificate is where there is an area shown in the current development plan as allocated primarily for use of a residential, commercial or industrial character, or range of two or more uses. That seems to be an extremely wide exception, and in many cases its effect is that many cases where a planning authority could help with a certificate are excluded. I am puzzled to know why the Government, who invented the idea of a certificate, are so modest about using it. 'They have taken the trouble to initiate the idea and then, in paragraph (b), they have cut out some cases in which it could have been used.
Instead of having this very wide exception, our Amendment proposes that wherever an area is shown in the development plan as primarily allocated for a use of a particular character, the exclusion shall apply where it is an area defined in the current development plan as a site of proposed development, or shown as allocated primarily for a specified use or specified uses, in other words, in all cases where the development plan is vague.
For example, where it is "white land", for which no use is prescribed, or in any case where there is not a specific allocation to a specific use, but where there is ambiguity and vagueness about the development plan, the certificate procedure would be used. As

drafted, the Bill provides that the certificate procedure would be excluded in those cases and the valuer would be left to his own ingenuity and imagination when making a decision.
That is the first leg of the Amendment. The second leg of the Amendment says:
… where any question arises as to the development for which planning permission might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted.
In other words, there will be access to the planning authority in any case of ambiguity where there is any question about which of the number of possible uses to which the land might have been put, and where there is any obscurity as to which is the most probable use. Those are essentially questions to which the planning authorities will know the answers.
Therefore, the purpose of our Amendment is to give responsibilities to the planning authority which are at present to be exercised by the valuer. Because we are dealing with planning questions, that is a much more appropriate authority to deal with them than the valuer. That principle is accepted in the whole idea of the certificate about which the Government are proud. They accept the general principle that the best people to know about planning permission are members of a planning authority. Once that principle is accepted it seems reasonable to use it in cases where there is ambiguity.
Although this Amendment is complicated, it is important, and we attach a great deal of importance to it. The Amendment will enable decisions to be taken by the right authority and will prevent valuers getting involved in a lot of decisions which are not within their compass and are not decisions about values but about planning policy and the likelihood of particular planning developments and so on. That is all common form stuff for planning authorities but goes much beyond the sphere of knowledge of the valuer.
We press this Amendment with some certainty. There is no great controversial issue here. It is a question of the improvement of procedure for the benefit of everyone and in order to get a more qualified and better decision which will benefit all the parties concerned and will be obtained quickly and smoothly from the planning authority.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
When I was quite young I used occasionally to blow out balloons. For that purpose I took in my breath first, and that is what this Amendment does. The first part of it is not very important, but it restricts even further the restriction already imposed in the Clause itself. The Clause does not allow the certification procedure to be applied either to areas of comprehensive development or to areas which are allocated primarily for one of a number of general uses or for a range of uses. It is therefore clear in the Bill as drafted that the certification procedure will be rarely used.
The right hon. Gentleman indicated to us that in the great majority of cases its use would be in respect of white land. As I understand it, white land is land shown without any indication of the use for which it is intended, and the first words of the Amendment are designed specifically to cover the case of white land. What really matters are the words beginning
… or where any question arises ….
because that considerably enlarges the scope of the certification procedure. It allows that procedure to be used under general terms in cases which may or may not involve white land. That does not matter, provided that a question arises as to the development for which planning permission may reasonably have been expected to be granted.
It may be said—I should accept the criticism if it were said—that it would not have made much difference if the original words—the taking in of the breath before blowing out the balloon—had been omitted. The substantial point is dealt with by the words at the end. Therefore the Amendment is intended to apply the process of certification to all cases where there is a question about what might reasonably have been expected to be granted by way of planning permission.
Though the procedure both in this and the following Clause is not altered by this change so far as I can see, the effect of making it is considerable. We may be told by the right hon. Gentleman that there are other cases besides those involving white land, and that may be so. But in the vast majority of cases where land

is shown on a development plan the certification procedure will not be applied at all. It is only a recourse in certain limited circumstances. We looked at this matter upside down and roundabout and came to the conclusion that it looks quite good, because the object of the certification procedure is to decide questions of probability in relation to planning permission and to get them decided by the person who is the best if not the only person qualified to decide them, namely, the planning authority.
The planning authority is the best judge of its own intentions and the best judge of any prospective or conditional intentions which it might have. When one has to choose between one possibility and another in a wide range, it may be very useful to know the view of the planning authority. If I may give hon. Members a homely instance, I am sure that a number of people intending to make some development in an area go informally to the planning authority beforehand to ask whether they would be likely to obtain permission for what they intend to do; because it might save a lot of time and trouble, and possibly money, being spent on something about which there is not much probability of permission being given. We are trying to go considerably beyond what is intended in the Bill by way of certification procedure and to use this piece of machinery for a realistic purpose.
If we are to assess open market value, which is what we are all trying to do, and to do so in relation to planning permission, clearly we should have some way of deciding the weight to be given to any particular planning permission and the selection in any terms of that planning permission which would be reasonably probable. That is the intention of this Clause but only for limited purposes and in limited cases. We desire to give it what I think would be an almost universal, but, of course, only a discretionary application.
We have more confidence in professional valuers than the right hon. Gentleman appears to have, judging from the way he dealt with an Amendment yesterday which would have had the result of leaving a lot more to them. Having that confidence, we think that in a great many cases there would be no necessity to go to the planning authority; but if the question did arise and if the


valuers, sitting over their cups of tea in the picturesque office described by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) during the Committee stage discussions—

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: Not picturesque.

Mr, Mitchison: —in a rather grimy, dusty office, if the hon. Gentleman would have it that way—agree among themselves, no question arises. There is no need to go to the planning authority. That may be so in a number of cases, but we have given a wide discretionary power to go to the planning authority.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. I cannot say that I expect he will, because I never expect him to accept any Amendment. If he is proposing to accept anything he usually turns it down firmly at the moment and then brings it in again later. Perhaps he will turn this Amendment down today and bring it in in another place—one never knows.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is so wedded to the frame of his Bill that he will reject the Amendment. He has invested a very nice procedure in this certification business. He ought to be proud of it. It is very sensible, very good and we compliment him on it as a bit of procedure. The trouble is that, having invented it, he does not use it. This is an endeavour to make him do so.
Therefore, we attach a considerable importance to the Amendment. We believe that it would introduce an element of reality and save a great deal of trouble in many cases, and since this is a matter to which we attach importance, it would save a good many applications to the Lands Tribunal on exactly this sort of question, because we believe the planning authorities' views on the matter would always be available and in a great many cases would be conclusive.

Mr. Bevins: This question and one or two variants of it have been discussed at some considerable length in Committee. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) are seeking to do is to widen the area in which applications may be made for certificates.
Under the principal Amendment, to which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself, it would be possible, as I read it, for an acquiring authority to apply for a certificate wherever any assumptions fall to be made under Clause 3—except, of course, the assumption in subsection (1) of that Clause—and so to qualify or extinguish any planning assumptions which are to be made by reference to the development plan itself.
I am sure that the House will see that, if a change of that sort were to be made, it would very considerably widen the range of cases under which certificates could be applied for. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman is rather enamoured of the certificate device, I think one also has to bear in mind that some local authorities, especially the larger local authorities are already concerned a little at the amount of work in which certificates may involve them within the present limits provided for in the Bill.
The Bill as drafted leaves it to the valuers to determine the development for which planning permission might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably be expected to be granted, where the information contained in the plan of course can be expected to give sufficient information for the valuers to answer that question without undue difficulty. I am sure it is right that in those cases we should rely on the valuers and upon the information contained in the development plan.
There is no reason to suppose that information should not be sufficient to give the valuers enough information to enable them to do their work and, of course, the intention of my right hon. Friend is that the certificate machinery should be left for those classes of case where no authority, other than the local planning authority, can be expected to supply the information. That, I think, is the right way to go about this, and I do not believe that the change proposed in the Amendment would be one which would be very widely welcomed among the local authorities or the general public.

Mr. MacColl: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been most unhelpful. Here is something in the Bill of which we have recognised the value, the certificating procedure. We have, with the greatest good will, pointed out that it


could be more effectively used and would, in many cases, lead to greater smoothness in reaching agreement between the vendor and the purchaser, and the hon. Gentleman produces no reason at all why it should not work perfectly well.
If the Government had any intention of approaching the problems of this Bill in a dispassionate way and were not obstinately determined to have their own way on everything undoubtedly they would have accepted this as a very useful extension of the certificate procedure.

I am very disappointed, and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is even more disappointed because he is warmhearted and wants to think well of the right hon. Gentleman if he possibly can. Therefore, we can show our distaste of the attitude of the Government towards this only by taking the matter to a Division.

Question put, That "section" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 195.

Division No. 73.
AYES
15.46 p.m


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gibson-Watt, D.
Macdonald Sir Peter


Aitken, W. T.
Glover, D.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Alport, C. J. M.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Godber, J. B.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Arbuthnot, John
Goodhart, Philip
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield W.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Gough, C. F. H.
Macmillan Maurice (Halifax)


Ashton, H.
Gower, H. R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Atkins, H. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maddan, Martin


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Grant, Rt. Hon. w. (woodside)
Maitland, Cdr.J.F.W.(Horncastle)


Barter, John
Green, A.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Batsford, Brian
Grimond, J.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grimston, Sir Robert (West bury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gurden, Harold
Marshall, Douglas


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mathew, R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mawby, R. L.


Bidgood, J. C.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr., S, L. C.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'fd)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hay, John
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Moore, Sir Thomas


Body, R. F.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bonham Carter, Mark
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bowen, E, R. (Cardigan)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nicholls, Harmar


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hesketh, R. F.
Nioholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Bryan, P.
Hicks-Beach, Ma]. W. W.
Nicolson, N. (B'nm'th, E. amp; Chr'ch)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Carr, Robert
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Channon, H. P. C.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Clarke Brig. Terence (Portsmth W.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Oakshott, H. D.


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hobson, John(Warwick amp; Leam'gt'n)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Cooke, Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornby, R. P.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)


Corfield, F. V.
Hornsby-Smlth, Miss M. P.
Osborne, C.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Page, R. G.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hughes-Young M. H. C.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Partridge, E.


Crowder, Sir John (Finehley)
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Peel, W. J.


Cunningham, Knox
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Currie, G. B. H.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Davidson, Viscountess
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Davies,Rt.Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitman, I. J.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitt, Miss E. M


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pott, H. P.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kirk, P. M.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt J. A.
Ramsden, J. E.


du Cann, E. D. L>
Leather, E. H. C.
Redmayne, M.


Duncan, Sir James
Leavey, J. A.
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Renton, D. L. M.


Elliott, R. w. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A, T.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Robertson, Sir David


Fell, A.
Lloyd Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Roper, Sir Harold


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Loveys, Walter H.
Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard


Freeth, Denzil
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Russell, R. S.


Gammans, Lady
Lucas, P.B.(Brentford amp; Chlswick)
Sharples, R. c.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McAdden, S. J.
Speir, R. M.




Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Stevens, Geoffrey
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Webster, David


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Storey, S.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Woollam, John victor


Summers, Sir Spencer
Vosper, Rt, Hon. D. F.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)



Teeling, W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Temple, John M.
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Chichester-Clark


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
and Mr. Finlay.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pentland, N.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Awbery, S. S.
Holman, P.
Prentice, R. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holmes, Horace
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Balfour, A.
Houghton, Douglas
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Benson, Sir George
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Probert, A. R,


Beswick, Frank
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hoy, J. H.
Randall, H. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hunter, A. E.
Reeves, J.


Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S. w.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William


Boyd, T. C.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reynolds, G. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)



Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Ross, William


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Royle, C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Champion, A. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Chapman, W. D.
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, p. H. (Birkenhead)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lewis Arthur
Sparks, J. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Logan, D. G.
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin, J. D.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, John


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McCann, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacColl, J. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacDermot, Niall
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mclnnes, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mahon, Simon
Timmons, J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Tomney, F.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mason, Roy
Warbey, W. N.


Fernyhough, E.
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, D.


Fletcher, Eric
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Gooch, E. G.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moss, R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Boisover)



Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hamilton, W. W.
Owen, W. J.
Woof, R. E.


Hannan, W.
Padley, W. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hastings, S.
Palmer, A. M. F,
Zilliacus, K.


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.



Heeley, Denis
Paton, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pearson, A.
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer


Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.

Clause 4.—(CERTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, at the end to insert:
Provided that, if the said first-mentioned authority is the local planning authority, any application for a certificate under this section may be made to the Minister and in that event references in this section to the local planning authority shall have effect as references to the Minister.
It may be that in some cases the acquiring authority and the local planning authority are one and the same. As we said in the Standing Committee, it is desirable in such a case that the owner of the interest should not get the impression that he is being unfairly dealt with. If he is in dispute with the acquiring authority and is told, "You can settle this under the law by applying for a certificate", and then he finds he is making application for the certificate to the local planning authority which is also the acquiring authority, he may feel that he is getting a very raw deal.
The Amendment would make it possible for him to take his application for a certificate direct to the Minister. It goes without saying that there should be no unfairness in the treatment of these matters by local authorities, but we are anxious that it should be clear that there is no unfairness.
When this matter was considered earlier, it was thought to be open to objection on the ground that the Minister and his Department should not be burdened with all the work involved if references were made direct to the Minister. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out that the difficulty could be avoided by the method, proposed in the Amendment, of making it discretionary for the owner of the interest to go to the Minister in a case where the acquiring authority and the local planning authority are the same body.
In many cases the owner of the interest, when in dispute with the acquiring authority, will be content to have the matter referred to the local planning authority. He will appreciate that in such cases that consideration will be borne in mind by the adjudicating authority and he will be quite content that it should go there for it to settle the matter; but in other cases, where the owner of the interest might

want to go direct to the Minister—there will be a minority of cases—it will be very desirable that he should do so. We believe that the principle embodied in the Amendment is important.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: An Amendment on broadly similar lines was considered at an earlier stage. The present Amendment is not quite identical with that one, which was rejected by my right hon. Friend.
This Amendment would give the parties directly concerned in a transaction the choice of applying for a certificate either to the local planning authority or to the Minister, in cases where the local planning authority happened also to be the acquiring authority. I have noted that the Amendment now has "may" in substitution for the earlier "shall". The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has explained why that change has been made. I do not think that that substitution would have more than a very slight effect on the number of applications made direct to the Minister, but I agree that that is a matter of opinion.
My right hon. Friend undertook to re-examine this proposition when it was debated in Committee, and that we have done. I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend does not feel that he can accept this proposal. There is no doubt that in principle there was force in the argument that an authority should not be the judge in its own cause, but the applicant enjoys the right of appeal to the Minister. Any owner of land which is being acquired by the local planning authority has his interest completely safeguarded by the right of appeal to my right hon. Friend.
Local planning authorities are well aware that if at times they contemplate issuing an arbitrary decision—they cannot be wholly perfect all the time—on a planning application or an application for a certificate, as the case may be, it is more than likely to be upset by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on appeal.
There is within the Department, as we know from time to time, evidence of that happening, but generally local planning authorities are responsible bodies and may be relied on, as the hon. and learned


Member rightly said, to make impartial decisions. In many cases, perhaps in most cases, it is to be expected that the certificate which the planning authority will issue will be to the satisfaction of the owner and there will be no need to trouble the Minister at all. I am bound to say that I do not think that the Amendment would really increase the protection for the owner's interests. On the other hand, without a shadow of doubt it would place a very considerable burden upon the Minister.
I have already said that I do not think that making this revised procedure optional would have a large effect on the number of cases which would come forward to the Minister, but it would mean that the Minister would have to deal with a very large number of applications for certificates where land was being acquired by county boroughs or county councils and of course by the largest local authority of all, London County Council.
The mere fact that an attempt was made to limit the cases liable to come forward to those where the acquiring authority was also the local planning authority with no question of delegation would still mean that we could have this flood of cases from the bigger county boroughs, county councils, and so forth, which, in many cases, do not delegate their planning powers to subordinate authorities, very often, of course, because there are no subordinate authorities.
As my right hon. Friend aptly said at an earlier stage, applicants would certainly dislike the prospect of quick decisions being taken behind closed doors in Whitehall. I do not think that there is any doubt at all that if applicants were to have the choice of applying either to the local planning authority or the Minister of Housing and Local Government it certainly would not be possible on grounds of fairness, or for the sake of giving the impression of fairness, for those applications to be considered in Whitehall purely as paper applications, as they might be considered by local planning authorities with all the knowledge they have of local conditions and circumstances, which knowledge is not available to the Ministry in London.
For those reasons we feel this Amendment will not achieve anything appreciably worth while for applicants and

landowners, but, on the other hand, it would thrust an enormous burden of work on the Ministry. I know that the hon. and learned Member will think that perhaps we are being a little inflexible in this respect. I hope he will take it from me that we have already deferred, and rightly, to a number of points of view expressed by hon. Members opposite. I do not think that we have yet reached the end of the road, but this is one which we cannot commend to the House.

Mr. Mitchison: There was an old battleship called "Inflexible". I am sure that it is concealed somewhere inside the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend draw their inspiration from it every day. What is worse than inflexibility is this habit of producing contradictory answers. The Parliamentary Secretary did it this time.
He first told us that everyone would prefer to have his case decided by the local planning authority than decided in Whitehall, but he also told us that the effect of giving such an option in the matter, that is to say, of allowing them to go to the Minister instead of obliging them to go to the Minister, would be very small indeed. It appeared that it would follow that the vast majority of people would prefer to go to Whitehall than to the local planning authority.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman, whose look of repentance I welcome, is now realising the contradictions inherent in his remarks. The fact is that if the considered opinion of the hon. Gentleman, which he gave us several times, was that there would be a vast flood of cases coming in under this option, the majority of cases would be coming in under the option. There would be all the more need for the option because those would be the people who need not go to the Minister, but exercise their option to do so because they do not think it quite fair that their cases should be decided by the local planning authority when that authority is the same as the acquiring authority.
If, in fact, there is a widespread sense of grievance resulting in a flood of cases, it may be more troublesome to the Ministry, but it is a much better argument for accepting the Amendment. I tell the Parliamentary Secretary that it was his own speech which made me so uneasy about the consequences of not accepting the Amendment. It is this


flood of cases which worries me. The question is: which do we prefer—the old question of administrative convenience or social justice? In this case, the hon. Gentleman came down with a plomp on the side of preferring administrative convenience. It would be a troublesome flood of cases and it did not matter that in every case there would be a feeling of grievance of some sort—otherwise they would not have exercised the option—that did not appeal to him at all. What appealed to him was that it would create a lot of trouble in the Ministry. That is what upsets me.
I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman is right. In my inability to make any attack worth talking about on "Inflexible", I take leave to comfort myself a little in this way. The local planning authority does not, of course, mean an authority exercising delegated powers under some limited scheme. It must mean either the county council or the county borough council.
Both county councils, even in Rutland-shire, and county borough councils are large authorities and their powers are exercised separately. Nominally, the planning committee and the committee concerned with acquiring property of this kind are committees of the same council, but in practice their membership, functions and all their actions are distinct. The planning committee, in particular, has a status of its own which perhaps does not quite attain to the independence of an education committee or even of a finance committee, but still is very considerable.
We may have to be content with the existence of this grievance in some cases—it certainly will exist—and rely on the independence of these various committees of a large council, whether it be a county council or a county borough council.
I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I am a little disappointed in him and his right hon. Friend. Their original objections were to a compulsory application to the Minister. I see the force of that, but I do not think that they have appreciated the significance of what will happen if there is a flood of applications. It will mean that in a very large number of cases a great many people, whether justice is done or not, will feel that justice is not being done.
In a Bill the substantial object of which is to do both justice and apparent justice in cases of compensation for compulsory acquisition, it is very inadvisable to introduce or preserve the obvious possibility of apparent injustice. I sometimes feel that lawyers are perhaps almost too keen on not allowing apparent injustice, but if it is an error it is certainly one on the right side. It would be only too easy to let this kind of thing slip into a Bill and for an obstinate Department to say that it will cause them a great deal of trouble and then to find that one has done something which brings down on the head of the right hon. Gentleman even more obloquy than he naturally deserves.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I rise to support the Amendment and to express my disappointment with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary. The doctrine that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done is one that we cannot depart from lightly. That doctrine was very well developed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). Therefore, I do not intend to repeat arguments which, I believe, are quite unanswerable.
I want to speak on this subject from the local government point of view. I am exceedingly anxious that in all these important matters the county council and not the committee should be recognised as the authority, whether it is the acquiring committee or the general planning committee. If there are two committees of one local authority finally appealing before the authority and there is a dispute, if there is some disagreement on the council, it will be a very disastrous thing for county government if it is thought that the voting on a popularly elected body will settle matters of justice. After all, that is what we are concerned with.
If we rely on the appeal to the Ministry, I am of the opinion that what will be felt by the landowner will be that, having obtained a decision from the local authority, it is very unlikely that that will be upset on appeal. He will feel that he has already lost a good deal of his case because it has already been once adjudicated upon by the authority. If he likes to say that he does not want it to go to the Ministry, he need not exercise his option of going there. I think that the option should be open to him, where the


authority is both the acquiring and purchasing authority, to be able to say that he would sooner have a first decision given by a body which is at least not divided within itself on the issue on which adjudication is to be made.
I sincerely hope that the Ministry will have some further thoughts on this matter before it departs from the sound principle that nobody should be allowed to judge his own case. In both cases it is the authority and not the committee which is vested with the decision to be made. It seems to me to be quite anomalous that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment should have been greeted in the way it was by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevins: It would be discourteous if I were not to make two short comments on what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine).
There may be a little misunderstanding, and perhaps it was my fault because of the way I expressed myself. When I referred to the possibility of a flood of applications to the Minister, what I had in mind, as one naturally would have in mind, was the very large number, for example, of planning appeals which normally find their way to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The planning appeals which come to the Ministry probably represent a very small percentage of the total number of applications which go to local planning authorities.
I would not presume to give the House a figure, because nobody knows precisely what the figure is. From the point of view of the Ministry and of the burden of work which would fall upon it under the arrangements proposed in the Amendment, that would represent a flood of applications to the Ministry, although the proportion of cases to the whole might be relatively small.
On the main point made by the right hon. Member for South Shields, he had in mind that some owners of land might feel that, because their case had been considered by a particular committee of a local authority and they had lost their case with the local planning authority and had not got What they wanted, they

might in some ways be prejudiced in the ultimate result.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the House that that simply is not so. As in the case of planning appeals, these cases are considered by my right hon. Friend on a completely impartial basis and, no matter what the decision of this authority or that authority may have been, the case is looked at entirely impartially and afresh. I beg the House to bear in mind that no matter what the merits or demerits of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment may be in principle, in cases where the applicant does not get his way with the local planning authority he is completely uninhibited from appealing to my right hon. Friend. Nothing can deprive him of that right.

Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy of his reply. I am concerned with what is in the minds of those persons. They will not have had the great advantage of hearing the Minister's elucidation, but they will have a grave suspicion that if they are up against the authority and get a decision from which they want to appeal, they have already encountered one reverse from which it is difficult to recover. Many of those who get involved in this kind of difficulty are quite small people, with great fears as to what will happen to them. I am thinking of their minds, not of the perfectly pure mind of the Parliamentary Secretary, and the nearly as pure mind of the Minister, when they have to deal with any appeal.

Mr. Willis: The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the flood of planning appeals that would come before the Minister. Is that true of Scotland? We have been told that conditions are rather different there and that there the Bill's impact is not so great. Will the same arguments hold good? I am quite certain that had this Bill gone to the Scottish Grand Committee, as we wanted, the Minister would have found great difficulty in resisting this Amendment.
Where a local authority such as Edinburgh or Glasgow is involved, the applicant for a certificate will feel that once the local authority has turned down his application an appeal to the Secretary of State against that decision will be a very formidable job. There are a great number of owner-occupiers in Edinburgh—


the owners of the dominium utile—and a large number of them will be unaware of their right to appeal to the Secretary of State. In fact, they seek our advice about this now. As conditions in Scotland may be rather different, it would be good to be given some information as to the likely number of applications, and whether the Scottish Office would be unable to deal with them. We have not been told anything about that.

Mr. N. Macpherson: It is undeniable that the number of applications would be very much less. The country is smaller, so the number of transactions is proportionately smaller. I understand that there are about 200 appeals per annum at present which is very much less than the number in England. Nevertheless, that does not alter the main argument. It is still better for these applications to go, in the first place, to the planning authority, and afterwards, if necessary, to appeal.
The planning authority is on the spot and has the machinery for investigating on the spot. Even in a comparatively small country like Scotland, it is more difficult to investigate from the centre. I quite realise that a stronger case could be made out in Scotland than in England but, on balance, I think that it is better to have the same procedure in all cases, whether or not the planning authority is also the acquiring authority.

Mr. Mitchison: Is there not this difference between Scotland and England, that, save in exceptional cases, the acquiring authority in Scotland will be the same as the planning authority, because of the different position of county councils as housing authorities?

Mr. Macpherson: That is true, of course, and that in a sense, enhances the value of my argument, namely, that there are a smaller number of cases at present but that the Amendment would mean a proportionately larger number of cases coming to the centre.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has said, as has the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), that people will be afraid to appeal. I can only say that the evidence we have is that in ordinary planning applications no disposition is shown of fear to appeal, and there is no more reason why there should be in this case. In any case, of course, information

about the right to appeal would be printed on the notice, so that there would be no doubt that the person receiving a refusal would be well aware of his rights. As I say, in planning applications there has certainly not been any disposition whatsoever for people not to avail themselves of the right to appeal, and we think that that would apply also in the case of certificates.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, after "section" to insert:
made by one of the parties directly concerned—
(a)".
With this Amendment, the House might think it convenient to take those in page 6, lines 21 and 24, and the three consequential Amendments to Clause 7, in page 9, lines 7, 8 and 9.
I hope that this group of six Amendments will be generally acceptable as they give effect to my hon. Friend's assurance in Standing Committee, when he accepted the principle of a very similar Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). They provide that when one of the parties directly concerned applies for a certificate under Clause 4, he must state that he has notified, or is notifying the other party on a particular date, and the local planning authority must not take a decision on the application until 21 days after that date.
That deals with the Amendments to Clause 4. The House will bear in mind that what is now Clause 7 contains various supplementary provisions relating to the certificate system. As I have said, the three Amendments to Clause 7 are purely consequential on the changes we are proposing to make in Clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 21, at end insert
and
(b) shall be accompanied by a statement specifying the date on which a copy of the application has been or will be served upon the other of those parties".

In line 24, after "shall", insert:
not earlier than twenty-one days after the date specified in the statement accompanying the application in accordance with paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

6.30 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, after "granted", to insert "or refused".
In my submission, this Amendment will improve the machinery of certification. This is a comparatively small procedural point, but I believe the change will be of advantage and possibly it will save a good deal of time and trouble in future years.
It may be that the acquiring authority and the owner of the interest are engaged in a disputation about the amount of development likely to be permitted. The owner of the interest may be contending for a more variable use—let us say a light industrial use. The acquiring authority would inform the owner of the interest that he would not get permission for light industrial use but would get permission only for residential use, residental use being for this purpose a rather less valuable use of the land.
It would be possible in such a case for the owner of the interest, who might possibly be dog-in-the-manger about it, to refuse to apply for a certificate. In that hypothesis, what the acquiring authority would want—and would be justified in wanting—would be a certificate by the local planning authority that a light industrial use would not be permitted. That is the form of adjudication to which it is entitled.
It does not meet the case for the local authority to apply for a certificate that the land could be used for residential purposes because the affirmative answer to that does not exclude the possibility that light industrial use may be an appropriate alternative use.
The only other way that difficulty can be overcome is by the acquiring authority putting forward an application in which it formally goes to the local planning authority and asks for an adjudication that a use which it does not want to see attached to the land is one which the local planning authority would be likely to permit.
Surely the Government will yield on this small though not unimportant point which, if it is accepted, will save trouble in the future and give the local authority the opportunity to put forward its application for a certificate in a form of words which will be both convenient and suit the case.

Mr. Edward Short: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke: This, as the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said, is a small point. He has argued persuasively, but I must put it to the House that it would not improve the Bill to make the Amendment.
The hon. Member has omitted to mention what really must be the guiding principle here. We are seeking to make this certificate procedure run as nearly parallel as we can to the procedure for applying for planning permission. The hon. and learned Member seeks by his Amendment to enable the planning authority to state in a certificate not only those classes of development for which permission might in its opinion reasonably have been expected to be granted, but also those classes in which permission might reasonably have been expected to have been refused.
No applicant for planning permission can ever obtain from a local planning authority a statement of the permissions which will be refused. There is no machinery for doing that. He can apply for the grant of planning permission but not for the refusal of planning permission. Applications can be made to a planning authority for any sort of development the applicant cares to put down, and those applications must be considered, and either granted or refused, individually, but there is no machinery by which an applicant can obtain a general statement of the permissions which would be refused in relation to the site or property he proposes to develop.
As the House is aware, certificates under the Clause are intended to take the place of the planning permission an owner might reasonably have expected to get were the land not being acquired for some public purpose, and to provide for a certificate which would be refused—in other words, to provide for an entirely negative certificate—would be contrary to the principle we are trying to establish.
Although I may have been too optimistic on a previous occasion in saying that the Committee was agreed on something, I believe it was generally agreed that the certificate system was an ingenious expedient for solving an undoubted problem. If we have this certificate procedure at all, and if it is to be


operated by planning authorities with an appeal to the Minister, surely it is wise to keep it as nearly parallel as may be to the system of applications for planning permission.
It is on those grounds that I would advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: I cannot help getting the impression that the right hon. Gentleman has not paid enough attention to the other provisions of his own Clause. We are concerned with cases where an application for a certificate is made specifying one or more classes of development which the applicant considers to be appropriate. The subsection we are dealing with provides:
Where an application is made … the local planning authority shall issue to the applicant a certificate stating … that, in the opinion of the local planning authority, planning permission … of one or more classes specified in the certificate (whether being classes of development specified in the application or not) might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted …
That procedure does not parallel anything in an ordinary planning application, because there there is an application, various uses are specified by the applicant as being in his opinion suitable, and at the end of the day the local planning authority can express its opinion on that application that other classes of permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted, and there is no limitation to what they might put in.
In addition, the next paragraph permits it to say one thing in the negative, namely, that no planning permission would be granted except for the development which the acquiring authority proposes to carry out. That, again, is much more than a negative to the application. In fact, the planning authority is allowed to express a negative intention, or a refusal, in one case only, whereas it is allowed to express an expected grant in an almost unlimited field. Why should it not similarly be allowed to express its opinion, if it thinks it relevant, as to an anticipated refusal?

The Clause rightly leaves it to the planning authority to express its opinion not merely on what is in the application but on what it thinks to be relevant to all the circumstances of the case. Why the Government should give that wide liberty to the planning authority and then refuse to allow it in the case of a refusal passes my comprehension.

I cannot help feeling that in this part of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is wavering about. At times he thinks that he has found a complete answer to every question, and then, when we seek to complete the matter for him, he says, "No, you must not have that." That would interfere with some mysterious scheme he has in his head. I can assure him that this part of the Bill is profoundly illogical; it is incomplete, and it calls all the time for the exercise of a certain amount of knowledge, experience and common sense by valuers, for instance. Surely the same latitude might be allowed to planning authorities. I cannot help feeling that my hon. and learned Friend's simple Amendment raises a question of principle of some importance, and that "H.M.S. 'Inflexible'" is wrong again.

Mr. Irvine: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is quite untenable, on examination. Subsection (4, b) provides for the negative decision, and that surely takes away the basis of the Minister's argument. That being so, I hope that he will express a readiness to consider the matter again. The parallel between the procedure under the Bill and the application for planning permission is not a close one, in any event, but quite apart from that there is provision in the proposed procedure for the negative adjudication by the local authority, and I cannot see why it should not be extended in the manner proposed.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 220.

Division No. 74.]
AYES
[6.43 p.m.6


Ainsley, J. W.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Burton, Miss F. E.


Awbery, S. S.
BraddocK, Mrs. Elizabeth
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brockway, A. F.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Balfour, A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Carmichael, J.


Benson, Sir George
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Blackburn, F.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Champion, A. J.




Chapman, W. D.
Janner, B.
Redhead, E. C.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reeves, J.


Cliffe, Michael
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William


Coldrick, W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Reynolds, G. W.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cronin, J. D.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lawson, G. M.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Stephen, (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Skeffington, A. M.


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Diamond, John
Logan, D. G.
Slater, J, (Sedgefield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAllster, Mrs. Mary
Sorensen, R, W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McCann, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacColl, J. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards Robert (Bilston)
Mclnnes, J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Steele, T.


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, Frank
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Fletcher, Eric
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Foot, D. M.
Mahon, Simon
Swingler, S. T.


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gooch, E. G.
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Monslow, W.
Timmons, J.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, F.


Grey, C. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Vlant, S. P.


Hale, Leslie
Moss, R.
Warbey, W. N.


Hamilton, W. W.
Moyle, A.
Weitzmann, D.


Hannan, W.
Mulley, F. w.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hastings, S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Healey, Denis
Owen, W. J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paget, R. T.



Hewltson, Capt. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Holman, P.
Parker, J.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Holmes, Horace
Paton, John
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Houghton, Douglas
Pearson, A.
Winterbottom, Richard


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pentland, N.
Woof, R. E.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hoy, J. H.
Prentice, R. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hunter, A. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Zilliacus, K.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, A. R.



Hynd J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Randall, H. E
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Short




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
Finlay, Graeme


Aitken, W. T.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gammans, Lady


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Cole, Norman
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Armstrong, C. W.
Cooke, Robert
Gibson-Watt, D.


Ashton, H.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Glover, D.


Atkins, H. E.
Corfield, F. V.
Godber, J. B.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gough, C. F. H.


Barter, John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, H. R.


Batsford, Brian
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Cunningham, Knox
Green, A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Currie, G. B. H.
Grimond, J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bidgood, J. C.
Deedes, W. F.
Gurden, Harold


Biggs-Davison J. A.
de Ferranti, Basil
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bishop, F. P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Body, R. F.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
du Cann, E. D. L.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Duncan, Sir James
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Brooman-White, R. C,
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Bryan, P.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Burden, F. F. A.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Carr, Robert
Fell, A.
Hesketh, R. F.







Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Russell, R. S.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mathew, R.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mawby, R. L.
Sharples, R. C.


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Shepherd, William


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Medilcott, Sir Frank
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hirst, Geoffrey
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Speir, R. M.


Hope, Lord John
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hornby, R. P.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Howard Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Nicholls, Harmar
Storey, S.


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. amp; Chr'Gh)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Summers, Sir Spencer


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kaberry D.
Oakshott, H. D.
Teeling, W.


Kerr Sir Hamilton
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Temple, John M.


Kershaw, J. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Kirk, P. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Leather, E. H. C.
Osborne, C.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Leavey, J. A.
Page, R. G.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Partridge, E.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lindsay, Martin (Sollhull)
Peel, w. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Longden, Gilbert
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Loveys, Walter H.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pitman, I. J.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford amp; Chiswick)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wall, Patrick


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pott, H. P.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


McAdden S. J.
Powell, J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Webster, David


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ramsden, J. E.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


MacLeod, John (Ross amp; Cromarty)
Redmayne, M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Rees-Davies, w. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Remnant, Hon. P.
Woollam, John victor


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Renton, D. L. M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Ridsdale, J. E.



Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Robson Brown, Sir William
Mr. Hughes-Young and Mr. Legh


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 6, line 47, at the end to insert:
(6) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection, a local planning authority may formulate general requirements applicable to such classes of cases as may be described therein; and any conditions required to be specified in a certificate in accordance with that subsection may, if it appears to the local planning authority to be convenient to do so, be specified by reference to those requirements, subject to such special modifications thereof (if any) as may be set out in the certificate.
Perhaps it would be acceptable, Mr. Speaker, to take with this Amendment that to Clause 7, page 9, line 28.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker indicated assent.

Mr. Bevins: These Amendments fulfil the object of Amendments which were moved earlier by the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and Clapham (Mr. Gibson). Their intention was to make less onerous the obligation placed upon planning authorities to specify conditions in certificates.
The first Amendment enables a planning authority, instead of always

having to state in detail the conditions which apply to the development specified in a certificate under Clause 4, to formulate general requirements applicable to particular classes of cases and to specify any such conditions by reference to these general requirements with or without modifications.
The second Amendment empowers the Minister to provide by a development order that a copy of any general requirements relevant to a certificate must be supplied with the certificate unless those requirements have been published. The system is optional. It will be open to any planning authority which wishes to do so to prepare a statement of its standard requirements, but my right hon. Friend took the view that provisions of this sort would no doubt be helpful to the larger local authorities, including the London County Council.

Mr. Mitchison: I feel sure that these Amendments will meet the difficulties anticipated by the London County Council and mentioned by my hon.


Friend in Committee. The difficulties may have been anticipated by other large authorities. We are grateful to the Government for the Amendments.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is better versed in these matter than I am, and I am glad to know that he is grateful to the Government. However, I should like to know what the five and a half lines of the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman moved really mean. I have never read an Amendment so wrapped in doubt. Vagueness, generalities and qualifications are all incorporated in it, starting with the word "may". We also find the words,
general requirements applicable to such classes of cases as may be described therein".
There is no indication as to who is to describe them. We them get the curious words:
if it appears to the local planning authority to be convenient to do so.
What is that phrase doing in the Amendment? It could well be done without. There is no meaning to it and nothing that is being done would be changed if that phrase were left out. There are qualifications, permissive powers, ifs, buts, conditions, and all the rest of it.

Mr. Willis: And the inevitable "if any".

Mr. Ross: Yes. These five and a half lines might have been drawn up by Robert Benchley. I doubt whether the words mean anything at all.

Mr. Bevins: I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), whose claims to legal knowledge are so great. The meaning of the Amendment is perfectly clear to any hon. Member who cares to apply his mind to it. I do not want to deal with all the questions which the hon. Gentleman raised, because that would be a ridiculous exercise, but the hon. Gentleman asked who was to formulate the general requirements. The Amendment says "a local planning authority", and I assume that the hon. Gentleman knows what a local planning authority is. This is a perfectly straightforward piece of drafting.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to speak

more than once in relation to an Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: On consideration of a Bill which comes from a Standing Committee there is a relaxation of the rule in the case of a mover of an Amendment or the Member in charge of a Bill, but not in other cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 15, leave out from beginning to first "and" in line 18 and insert:
authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 6.—(EXTENSION OF SS. 4 AND 5 TO SPECIAL CASES.)

Mr. Speaker: Would it be convenient for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to take the Amendment in page 8, line 29, with the two following Amendments, in line 38, to leave out "both" and to leave out lines 39 to 46?

Mr. Willis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would it be convenient to take also the Amendment in page 10, line 42—

Mr. Speaker: I am speaking of the Amendment in page 8, line 29.

Mr. Willis: I agree that they go with the preceding Amendment, but I was suggesting that a fourth Amendment might be taken at the same time, namely, that in Clause 7, page 10, line 42, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 6 on page 11. It deals with the same point and is consequential on the other three Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out from "may" to the end of line 34 and to insert:
only be made by the person entitled to that interest".
This Amendment was phrased during the Committee stage and seeks to eliminate the ground superior or the owner of the ground annual from the certificate procedure. We had a fairly long discussion on this matter in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made a learned speech and gave us an historical account of the growth and development of the present system of feuing in Scotland.
During that discussion, we found that the Government were putting something additional in the Bill. When the Bill was introduced, we were told that its purpose was to enable the fair market value to be paid to the owner of land that was compulsorily acquired. In the words which we seek to delete, however, we find that the Government are not only doing that, but are providing an opportunity for the ground superior to put in an application for a certificate which will have the benefit of increasing the capitalised value of the feu that he holds. The Government are slipping in by the back door something with which we do not agree and which is outside the scope of the Bill.
I do not want to go into the question of how these people came to possess these rights. A great deal was said about that in Committee. In some cases, we do not know how they derived those rights and in other cases they have bought them. In many cases, they have bought them as an investment. I suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary that the people who have bought feus or ground annuals as an investment have taken a normal business risk. I cannot see why we should pick out these people because the value of their interest has gone down and say to them, "Under the provisions of the Bill, we will allow you to recoup yourselves."
I say that because the examples given by the hon. Gentleman in Committee were examples of that character. He quoted one in which the value of the land in question was about £60 and the capitalised value of the feu was £400 or £500. I do not suggest that that is generally applicable in Scotland, but if it is the case it seems to me that the feu charged has been much too high and that the person who holds it has been enjoying a considerable income to which he was not justly entitled.
In the case quoted by the Joint Under-Secretary, who quoted other cases yesterday on another Amendment concerning the sum paid by Glasgow Corporation when it was buying out certain feus in Scotland, I cannot see any justification for the amount being increased. In the first place, other people take business risks and if they are failures, they have to bear the loss. That is the ethics of the party opposite. Why the Government should

suddenly come along and say that we must not continue this in the case of the ground superior, or why he should be selected for preferential treatment, I cannot understand. It is unfair and it should not come into the Bill.
In the second place, it seems that in the cases that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the ground superior has for too long been enjoying an income far above what he ought to have been enjoying. Why we should now say, "You will lose something if the local authority wishes to acquire your interest in this land as the ground superior", I do not know. We should not do this. Why it is so unreasonable is that the public are asked to pay. It is the taxpayer and the ratepayer who now have to compensate these people for a loss which they have made as the result of taking an ordinary business risk. We have to compensate them on the basis of something which, on the face of it, appears to be exceedingly unjust over a very long period.
In Committee, the hon. Gentleman made no case in justification of that. He told us the purpose, but he did not endeavour to justify it. He did not point out why it was right that we should do this or why the taxpayer or ratepayer should he called upon to foot the bill. We will be very glad if he will do so now. If he cannot, we must consider whether to divide the House on our Amendment to delete this part of the Bill.

Mr. James McInnes: I beg to second the Amendment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said, the Amendment seeks to eliminate the ground superior from the provisions of the Clause. As the Joint Under-Secretary will be aware, in Committee we gave classic examples of the extortionate demands being made by ground superiors to local authorities who seek to acquire these feu duties and ground burdens to which the ground superior becomes entitled. I quoted many instances.
Unfortunately, I must say, also, that the largest ground superior in Scotland is, perhaps, the Churches. In some instances, they have found this to be a rather profitable form of investment. Local authorities are confronted with the position that when they seek to buy


these feu duties or ground annuals, the demand made against them is extortionate. In some cases, the capitalised value is estimated at £700, £800 or £900. The hon. Gentleman will tell me that in the case of compulsory acquisition, the local authority can bring in the district valuer and that between the ground superior and local authority, some better arrangement might be possible.
If the Bill has demonstrated nothing else, it has demonstrated that there is now need for a complete overhaul of the whole feudal system in Scotland. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will take this to heart. I assure him that if the Government were to bring in a Measure of that kind, he would get the backing of the Opposition.
There is every justification for the Amendment, in view of what is taking place throughout Scotland and the manner in which local authorities are being held to ransom when they come to acquire feu duties, ground burdens and matters of that kind. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will give us more satisfaction tonight than he did during the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I cannot guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that I can give him more, or indeed any, satisfaction by my answer. What I shall try to do is to give him an explanation. It would be going much wider than the Amendment, and the purposes of the Bill, if we were to consider tonight a complete overhaul of our land tenure system in Scotland.
This Amendment would have two effects. In the first place it would have a negative effect in preventing a superior or similar interest from applying for, or appealing against, a certificate under Clause 4. It would also have a positive effect, which is to confer a right on persons with an interest in land to apply for a certificate. I would say in passing that the Amendment would be unnecessary for that positive purpose, since persons with an interest in land are already empowered to make an application under Clause 4, and therefore the Amendment would add nothing to what is already in the Bill.
The essence of this matter is that we are trying to reach fair market value, and we come back all the time to what is fair market value for the land to be

acquired. The object of the Clause is to ensure that fair market value will be paid. As I explained at a previous stage of the Bill, it may be that for some reason or another the owner may not apply for a certificate. If he does not do so where a certificate would have been available had he applied for it he will not be getting fair market value for the land.

Mr. Willis: Why does it matter?

Mr. Macpherson: It matters because, as I explained before, in some cases it will not be the owner who will suffer but the superior, because the latter will not then be able to get the full consideration to which he is entitled. So we come back to what the Bill is designed to achieve. If the owner is not interested in fair market value because it is the superior who will get the advantage of fair market value being paid—the consideration being related to compensation which in turn is confined to the market value of the land to be acquired—it is only right that the superior on his own account should be able to apply for that certificate.

Mr. Willis: Why?

Mr. Macpherson: If the owner is not prepared to defend the rights of the superior—in other words, to make it possible for the owner himself in a sense to meet his obligation to the superior—then the superior must be put in a position to do it for himself. That is the purpose of allowing the superior to apply for a certificate.
The hon. Gentleman said that this was slipped into the Bill because it will increase the consideration which the superior will receive. As I explained yesterday, it cannot increase the value of the consideration, the capitalised value of the feu, beyond what is the capitalised value of that feu. In other words, if the number of years' purchase of a feu at a given period—assuming the credit of the feuar or owner is adequate— is, say, sixteen years, the capitalised value of that feu would be sixteen years' purchase.
7.15 p.m.
If, on the other hand, the credit of the feuar is less, the market will relate the value of the superior's rights to that position, and the market will also relate the value of those feu rights to the value


of the land over which the superior's rights are held. So there is a market for the superior's rights and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, they are freely bought and sold; but they are bought and sold, as they should be, on the basis that the market value of the land will be paid if it is acquired. Therefore, there again the superior ought to be entitled to apply for a certificate.

Mr. McInnes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the problems that confront local authorities when they acquire the feu? The owner, in the first instance, demands a figure which approximates to thirty or forty years' purchase price. Then, when the local authority brings in the district valuer, invariably the agreed figure is a twenty years' purchase price.

Mr. Macpherson: The reason for that is that the superior tends to regard his right to receive feu duty as a right in perpetuity. He may take the view that over a period of years that right will be maintained, though the land at one time may go down in value and it may go up in value at some other time. Here, the hon. Gentleman is dealing with cases not where the land has been bought compulsorily, but possibly in anticipation of a sale by agreement, or even in anticipation of the property being taken over from the owners, because the owners just hand it over, as has happened fairly often in Glasgow; in anticipation of that, the superior rights are being acquired. It is natural that the superior should say, in the first instance, to the acquiring authority that he has feu duties of, say, £50—

Mr. Willis: Mr. Willis rose—

Mr. Macpherson: The obligations are there. He may say he has a right to receive £50 on that property. The purchase value is twenty years and therefore his price is £1,000. However, as I pointed out previously, although it might have been possible for the superiors to do that before 1954, and for the amount received to come close to that, they now know that they are limited by Section 62 of the 1954 Act to the market value of the land. The total consideration plus compensation must be the unburdened value of the land, and it cannot be more than

that. Therefore, while they may demand in the first instance the full capitalised value of their feu duty, when the district valuer comes along he will assess it on the basis of the market value of the land, as he is bound to do, and naturally a settlement will approximate to that.

Mr. Willis: Surely this point would enter into consideration. In the example given by the hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage of the Bill, the value of the land was £60, with an annual feu duty of £25. As I said then, that is out of all proportion to the value of the ground, even with a certificate, which would increase the value perhaps to £100 or £200. Why should the local authority have to pay that inflated value?

Mr. Macpherson: I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the local authority does not have to pay the inflated value. The feu duty in the case which the hon. Gentleman mentions is £25. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said—I think I heard him murmuring—

Mr. Ross: I did not say a word.

Mr. Macpherson: I forgot; the hon. Gentleman does not murmur.

Mr. Ross: It is brooks that murmur. Mr. Willis: They babble.

Mr. Macpherson: The feu duty may be £25, and it may or may not be the case that feu duty is being received in full, but the market value that will be put upon the superior's rights will be related to the value of the land and also to the credit of the owner. It may be £100, or only four years' purchase. That might be the market value, but if an additional certificate is available for a new planning use, then, of course, it may well be that that will add to the value of the land. In that case, there will be more chance of the superior getting somewhat nearer to the capitalised value of the feu. If the owner did not apply for a certificate, that chance would be lost to the superior. Therefore, it is only reasonable that the superior should himself be put in a position to apply for the certificate.
I should like to deal with one other point which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because it is a point about which


many people in Scotland feel very keenly. He talked about the extortionate demands of superiors, and went on immediately, almost in the same breath, to mention the Churches in this regard.

Mr. McInnes: No.

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman went on, almost in the same breath, to mention the Churches, and talked about their having a profitable form of investment. The fact is that the Churches were compelled by law to invest in that form of investment. They had no option but to do so, and it is a fact that Section 62 of the 1954 Act has severely limited the amount which they can obtain if the local authority exercises its option on compulsory purchase to buy them out. If, on the other hand, it is a question of their being bought out in an ordinary transaction, they know very well that, with Section 62 of the 1954 Act on the Statute Book, the amount which they are able to get is rigidly limited in relation to the total value of the land. Therefore, I would deprecate very much any suggestion that the Churches are involved in this form of investment in any oppressive way. That is certainly not the case.

Mr. McInnes: I did not suggest that the Churches were. What I said was that it was unfortunate that the Churches were perhaps one of the biggest holders. That is what I said, recognising that by Statute they were more or less compelled to invest in that form of investment. The point I am making—and there are isolated examples of the Churches—is that, outside the Churches, the private speculator who invests in this form of investment has undoubtedly indulged in considerable racketeering, and I particularly emphasise that statement because we have had experience of it, I can tell the Solicitor-General for Scotland, in Glasgow—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member should make a second speech.

Mr. Macpherson: I am assured that, since the 1954 Act was passed, at any rate, the private speculator has practically disappeared from this market. Indeed, it is not very easy to realise assets of this nature in regard to some of the properties which are being acquired in Glasgow.
The whole point of this—and this is the central point—is to try to relate what the superior gets to the real market value of the land, and it is in order that the real market value can be established that the superior is given a right to apply for a certificate which, in almost every case, he will not exercise, except in default of the owner himself applying for it. In any case, he is most unlikely to exercise it if the capitalised value of his interest is already fully covered in the market value of the land.

Mr. Ross: We have had a very interesting sixth or seventh attempt by the Under-Secretary to justify what the Government are trying to do. If it has not become clear to anyone else, it should have become clear to the Under-Secretary that the trouble lies not at all in this Bill but in Section 62 of the 1954 Act, and that what we are trying to do here, probably in line with the whole artificiality of the assumptive nature of this Bill, is quite unrealistically to drag in the land superior.
In this Clause which we are now amending, we are dealing with the case in which what is being purchased is not the rights of the land superior at all but the rights of the vassal. There are two rights in land in Scotland. There is the perpetual right of the land superior of dominium directum. The sole purpose in life of the land superior and his descendants, as it was of some of his ancestors, is to collect the annual feu duty in respect of land which, somehow or other in the mysteries of the past, was acquired by his family. It is true that certain investment changes, to which reference is being made, have taken place, but the historic fact is that under him is the man who owns the land—the person who pays the feu duty.
The actual fact is that, in ordinary circumstances, if the owner of the land sells the land, the land superior has no right to intervene in that sale—none whatever. I own a piece of land in Scotland on which my house is built. If I sell it tomorrow the land superior to whom I paid my annual tribute is not the slightest bit interested. His feu duty still goes on with the next owner. In fact, what we are doing here is conferring on the land superior the right to interfere in negotiations in which he has no direct interest. He has no interest in the land, and I have


no less an authority for saying this than the Solicitor-General for Scotland. I do not quote him because he is Solicitor-General for Scotland but because in this case he was himself quoting a higher authority, and so, probably, there is much more certainty about it. On 29th January, in one of his irascible interjections, he interrupted one of my own not quite so short speeches, in which I said:
It leaves it open to the land superior to apply for a certificate because he has an interest in land.
The Solicitor-General said:
He has not. On the authority of Lord Dunedin, in the House of Lords, as I have said, he has not an interest in land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 29th January, 1959; c. 449–50.]
What we are doing here is conferring upon him an interest in land. In other words, we are changing the law of Scotland—

Mr. Willis: By the back door.

Mr. Ross: As my hon. Friend says, by the back door, in one of the craziest Bills that any Scottish lawyer has ever set his eyes upon. That is exactly what is happening. When we went through the Clauses on which this is hinged—Clauses 3 and 4—we limited the right of application for a certificate to people who were directly concerned. What we are now doing is to widen that and give to someone who, by the law of Scotland and by the declaration of one of the Law Lords of Scotland, has no interest in land, an interest not in any private negotiation that relates to the ordinary everyday sale of land, but only when a local authority or some such authority buys land under a compulsory purchase order.
7.30 p.m.
If there is something wrong with the present system, the law of Scotland should be changed and the Law Officers and the Secretary of State should justify the change in the general position of the land superior. The Joint Under-Secretary knows as well as I that he would get little, if any, support in Scotland for that. The position has become burdensome and anomalous and resented by the people of Scotland, who do not like the position of the feudal superior who has only rights and no obligations. I expanded that aspect of the argument in Committee,

and it would be wrong to go over that ground again.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was only fair that we should have this provision in respect of compulsory purchase. He said that the local authority would not pay an inflated value. But the whole purpose of this provision is to ensure that in some cases the local authorities will pay more. The hon. Gentleman went out of his way to suggest that and gave example after example.
In Section 62 of the 1954 Act, which was passed while the hon. Gentleman was in office, there was laid down an inflexible formula relating to the consideration to be paid by a local authority seeking to discharge its liabilities for feu duties, that is to say, when it calculates the capitalised value of the annual toll of feu duty. It was the hon. Gentleman's Government which made that provision. If there are some difficulties about it, it should be changed. I am not convinced that there are any difficulties. Even if there were, this would not be the right way to change them. The Government should be bold in this matter. It may well be that they are not very anxious to let the people of Scotland know what they are doing.
Now I come to the justice of the case. I have all along deplored that the Solicitor-General for Scotland should have insisted, on this and other matters related, on dragging in the Church of Scotland. I do not think that the Church of Scotland would wish to be considered in any way different from anyone else holding a feu duty. It was easy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to quote what the Church of Scotland had said. I can only say that he was more anxious to quote the Church of Scotland on feu duties than on what it said about Nyasaland.
It is obviously the position that in calculating the compensation and market value one is driven to the conclusion that the ground is overburdened. The passage of time has proved that and has shown that in any private sale of land or property the price is always related to the burdened value of the land.
Why should we go out of our way deliberately to confer on the land superior, during negotiations in which he is not directly concerned and which concern not him but the owner, a right which is conferred upon him at the expense of the local authority and which permits him at


a later stage to inflate what he gets when the local authority exercises its optional right of seeking discharge of the land from feu duty? That enables him to get an additional sum of money outwith the market value of the land, which is most unfair.
I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will come clean on this matter. It is the ratepayers and not the Government who will have to pay. The Government are being generous to the feudal landlords of Scotland, not at the expense of the Treasury but at the expense of the ratepayers. Local ratepayers will cake some convincing before they believe that it is fair to confer a right which has been decisively declared to be nonexistent and to do so in this obscure subsection in this obstruse—

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Abstruse.

Mr. Ross: —and complicated provision.
I hope that we shall hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There is no justification for introducing this new right only in respect of negotiations related to compulsory purchase. There is no justification for conferring a right on the land superior in ordinary sales of land. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to interrupt, I will gladly give way.

Mr. Speaker: Not by way of intervention. Has the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) finished his speech? The Question is—

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry that I did not rise at once, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), as usual, appeared to be rather uncertain of his ground and of his seat.
I want to make it clear that it was not I who brought in the Church of Scotland, either tonight or on a previous occasion. On the first occasion, I mentioned in passing, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) rightly did tonight, that the Church of Scotland was the largest holder of feu duties in Scotland. That is a matter which ought to be before the House.
I went further when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who is not with us tonight, accused me—and

I quote from memory—of "giving way to vested interests; the landlords again; giving way to representations by the superiors and the landlords". I pointed out, to correct the hon. Member and to get the truth on record, that the only representations which I had received had been from the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, and the Episcopal Church of Scotland. That is a statement of truth.

Mr. Ross: And nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Willis: This was on a different Bill.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I know, but reference was made to me bringing in the Church of Scotland. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) brought up this matter in Committee and if he is entitled to say in Committee what I said on an earlier Bill, I am entitled to bring it up at this stage, little though he may like it.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock, with his usual charm and persuasive gentleness, has been saying that the Bill will give the superior something which he has never had. He would still be getting far less than he got before 1954. It is true, as I explained in Committee, that the superior does not have an interest in land under the Land Clauses Act, 1845, which entitles him to a notice to treat. But under that Act he was entitled to get full consideration for the value of his feu duty and, as I have explained before, that was interpreted in most cases up to 1954 as being the full capitalised value, or something like twenty years purchase.
The 1954 Act altered that, and in this case all we are doing by this Clause is saying that if by an oversight or by the failure of the owner to ensure it the market value is not properly assessed, the superior can come in and have full market value assessed by the issue of a certificate and get his appropriate share of the payment made, just as he would if the owner had applied for a certificate. For the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to say that this is giving to the superior a right to exact from a local authority more than the actual market value—

Mr. Ross: No.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member said it was "outwith


the actual market value", which I took to mean beyond. If he wishes to correct me, I will give way and deal with him later.

Mr. Ross: I was correcting what was stated by the Under-Secretary, who said that by this means the land superior would not get more. I was saying he would get more than he would otherwise get were this Clause not in the Bill.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member may have said so, but if I remember rightly—if I am wrong, I apologise but I made a note of the words—the hon. Member said "out-with the actual market value." I wish to make clear that the superior cannot get more than the market value as at present laid down in this Bill.

Mr. Willis: But this is a qualification. Surely in any case under the 1919 rules the valuer is bound to assess at the market value. What we are putting into the Bill is something additional.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: What we are putting in is the fair market value.

Mr. Ross: Really!

Mr. Willis: This is a new fair market value.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If it is fair market value—we have dealt with this already for the owner—to assess it on the certificate basis for the owner it is equally fair to assess the fair market value on that basis for the superior. I see no reason why not. What I wish to make absolutely clear is that the total payment by the local authority to the superior and to the owner combined cannot exceed the fair market value under the Bill.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 161.

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[7.43 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Deedes, W. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Aitken, W. T.
de Ferranti, Basil
Hope, Lord John


Alport, C. J. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Dodds-Parker, A, D.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Arbuthnot, John
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh S.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Iremonger, T. L.


Astor, Hon, J. J.
Duncan, Sir James
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Atkins, H. E.
Elliott,R. W,(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Barter, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Batsford, Brian
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Fell, A.
Kershaw, J. A.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Finlay, Graeme
Kirk, P. M.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gammans, Lady
Leather, E. H. C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Leavey, J. A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bidgood, J. C.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Glover, D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Godber, J. B.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihulll)


Bishop, F. P.
Gower, H. R.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Body, R. F.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bonham Carter, Mark
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Longden, Gilbert


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Green, A.
Loveys, Walter H.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Grimond, J.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford amp; Chiswick)


Brooman-White, R. c.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bryan, P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McAdden, S. J.


Burden, F. F. A.

Macdonald, Sir Peter


Carr, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Channon, H. P. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Cole, Norman
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maddan, Martin


Cooke, Robert
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maitland.Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Heald, Rt. Hon Sir Lionel
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood)
Hesketh, R. F.
Mathew, R.


Cunningham, Knox
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mawby, R. L.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Davies, Rt.Hn.Clement (Montgomery)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hirst, Geoffrey
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.




Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Redmayne, M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Renton, D. L. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Nairn, D. L. S.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Nicholls, Harmar
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Robson Brown, Sir William
Vickers, Miss Joan


Nicolson, N.(B'n'm'th, E. amp; Chr'ch)
Roper, Sir Harold
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Russell, R. S.
Wade, D. W.


O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co, Antrim, N.)
Sharples, R. C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Shepherd, William
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Osborne, C.
Speir, R. M.
Wall, Patrick


Page, R. G.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Partridge, E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Webster, David


Peel, W. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Williams R. Dudley (Exeter)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Storey, S.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Woollam, John Victor


Pitman, I. J.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Pott, H. P.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Powell, J. Enoch
Teeling, W.
Mr. Chichester-Clark


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple, John M.
and Mr. Whitelaw.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Howell, Charles (Perry Bar)
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hoy, J. H.
Price, Philips(Gloucestershire, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, A. R.


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Boardman, H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E. C.


Brock way, A. F.
Janner, B.
Reeves, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Reynolds, G. W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C, W.
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Short, E. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwiok)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cronin, J. D.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sorensen, R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McCann, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacColl, J. E.
Spriggs, Leslie


de Freltas, Geoffrey
Mclnnes, J.
Steele, T.


Delargy, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Storehouse, John


Diamond, John
McLeavey, Frank
Stross, Dr,Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edelman, M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mason, Roy
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomney, F.


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Viant S. P.


Foot, D. M.
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert (Lewis'm,s.)
Warbey, W. N.


Forman, J. C
Mort, D. L.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moss, R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, David (Neath)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Grey, C. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hale, Leslie
Owen, W. J.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Hamilton, W. W.
Padley, W. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinbugh, E.)


Hannan, W.
Paget, R. T.
Winterbottom, Richard


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woof, R. E.


Hastings, S.
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.
Zilliacus K.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Paton, John



Herbison, Miss M.
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holman, P.
Pentland, N.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Simmons.


Houghton, Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie

Clause 7.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CERTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 7, after "prescribing", insert:
(subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of section four of this Act".

In page 9, line 8, leave out "section four of this Act" and insert "the said section four".

In page 9, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).

In page 9, line 28, at end insert:
(e) for requiring a local planning authority, on issuing a certificate specifying conditions by reference to general requirements in accordance with subsection (6) of the said section four, to supply a copy of those requirements (or of so much thereof as is relevant to the certificate) with each copy of the certificate, unless before the certificate is issued, the requirements in question have been made available to the public in such manner as may be specified in the development order.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 26, after "effect", to insert:
as if after the words 'to be made and dealt with respectively' there were inserted the words 'and other procedural matters ancillary to such applications and appeals' and".
At an earlier stage, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), whom I do not see in his place at the moment, said, when talking about the words at the beginning of Clause 1 (1) that they had nothing whatever to do with the certification procedure in so far as paragraphs (e) and (f) of Clause 7 (4) relate to them. In saying that, he went a little far, because they have to do with it in that both these two provisions are related to making it possible for the superior to apply for a certificate. At the same time, he was on quite a good point.
This Amendment seeks to give effect to the idea which he had in his mind at the time. It is true that paragraphs (e) and (f) do not strictly regulate the manner in which applications are to be made and dealt with, and it is for those reasons that the words on the Notice Paper are proposed to be inserted:
and other procedural matters ancillary to such applications and appeals'
which will, without doubt, cover paragraphs (e) and (f).

Mr. McInnes: While the Joint Under-Secretary has said that he is giving effect to the desires of my hon. Friend the

Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I must say that he has not done so in a very intelligible manner. We have frequently referred during our proceedings, and particularly during the Committee stage, to the complicated and unintelligible phrases contained in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) have talked about the legal verbiage and frequent use of words and phrases which they regarded as redundant. We have had mention of some this afternoon. In giving effect to this Amendment, I want to direct the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary to just how it will read. I hope that the House will bear with me and endeavour to follow me:
In the application of this section to Scotland, subsection (1) shall have effect as if after the words 'to be made and dealt with respectively' there were inserted the words 'and other procedural matters ancillary to such applications and appeals' and as if there were added at the end thereof the following paragraphs, that is to say—
I submit that that is most unintelligible.
I should like to quote from the Faculty of Advocates, who sent me a communication protesting against the provisions of the Bill being spatchcocked into English legislation. It says:
It is desirable that the law, however complicated and unintelligible, should at least be readily accessible. Should the present Bill be passed into law in its existing form, it will be necessary for a member of Faculty, before endeavouring to construe a particular statutory provision, first to ascertain from the Scottish application subsection what is the equivalent provision of the existing Scottish Acts, and thereafter to read such equivalent provision subject to the relevant amendments. Those who have to construe the English provisions will at least be spared the first part of this jig-saw puzzle.
The point which I want to put to the Joint Under-Secretary is that during our proceedings yesterday he said:
I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were now to say that consideration has been given, and I can now definitely state that the Government intend to promote a re-enacting Bill immediately this Bill receives the Royal Assent. The re-enacting Bill will be in Scottish terms and will contain everything in this Bill which applies to Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 995.]
Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure when re-enacting the Bill after it has received the Royal Assent—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am having a little difficulty in connecting the hon. Member's argument with the Amendment.

Mr. McInnes: I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether he will undertake to gibe us an assurance this afternoon that when re-enacting the Bill he will amend this provision in its application to Scotland, without in any way altering the sense of the Bill, so that it will be readily understood by the legal and other professions in Scotland.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I thought, at first, that the disappearance of the Solicitor-General for Scotland from the Chamber was due to the very violent, fighting speech which he made having exhausted him, but, confronted with the Amendment that we are now considering. I think that, possibly, that might not be so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might really he ashamed of what he is perpetrating in respect of Scottish law.
I have no objection to the Amendment going into the Bill, because it seems to me to make a little sense of the provisions that follow. It is an example of the exceedingly difficult task that the Government are placing upon people in Scotland who have to try to interpret the law. The Minister ought to be apologising to the people of Scotland for doing this and not coming to the Dispatch Box in a manner suggesting that he is conferring a great favour upon my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
The Amendment does nothing of the kind. While it might be necessary, it makes the Bill more involved than ever. When asking us to accept the Amendment the Minister should apologise for the great inconvenience that he is causing not only to Scottish Members but to the Scottish people when he inflicts this kind of language upon them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(MODIFICATION OF RULES FOR ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION.)

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 13, line 10, to leave out from "to" to the end of line 14 and to insert:
the fact that (whether by way of designation, allocation or other particulars contained in the current development plan, or by any other means) an indication has been given that the relevant land is, or is likely, to he acquired by an authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies".

The Amendment is designed to meet an interesting point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in the Committee. He drew attention to the fact that the reference to "proposals" in subsection (6) of what it now Clause 8 might give rise to confusion with subsection (2)—at least I took it that that was in his mind. He said, if I remember rightly, that there was a puzzling relationship between the table in subsection (2) and the words to which I have referred in what is now subsection (6).
The object of subsection (6) is quite distinct from the object of subsection (2). It is to remove the depreciation that is caused, not by the actual proposals for development but by the threat hanging over of future acquisitions by a public authority. The words in the Amendment get rid of that word "proposals" which might have been ambiguous, thereby removing the trouble to which the hon. and learned Gentleman called the Committee's attention. I trust that if he has been able to study these alternative words he will be satisfied that the Government have paid attention to the valid point he raised and have made the distinction clear.

Mr. Mitchison: This Amendment meets the point I raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(LONG-STANDING NOTICES TO TREAT.)

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 16, line 29, at the end to insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply if, before the end of the said period of one year, the acquiring authority have exercised a right of entering upon and taking possession of land in pursuance of the notice to treat.
The Amendment is to deal with a point which occasioned notice in relation to the Clause. Subsection (4) provides that, where a notice of what is called "intention to proceed" has been served, if at the end of a year from the date of the service of that notice compensation has not been agreed and no proceedings have been begun for the determination of any question relating to that compensation, the notice to treat shall cease to have effect. The object of the provision is to ensure that these old, long-standing notices to treat which have been a bear garden for many years will be finally disposed of.
The Amendment deals with a contingency which might arise if a local authority has entered upon land in pursuance of the powers it has following the service of a notice to treat. If it has done that before the end of the year in question, it causes great difficulty if the notice to treat ceases to have effect. The authority will be in possession of the land without having power to proceed with acquisition. That clearly is a situation for which Parliament ought to provide.
The Amendment therefore would ensure that the subsection will not apply where the acquiring authority has exercised the right of entering upon and taking possession of the land. This is not inconsistent with the general purpose of the provision in the Bill which is designed to get these long-standing notices to treat wound up. In the case envisaged in the Amendment the owner has lost possession and has therefore the incentive to get the matter settled. That incentive should be sufficient to ensure that the whole question is wound up.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 32, line 31—

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Are we not to be allowed to move our Amendment in page 29, line 15, at the end to insert a new paragraph?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but I was informed that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not want to move it.

Mr. Mitchison: That impression arose out of a Ruling, with which I respectfully agreed, that there are grave objections to the Amendments immediately preceding the one to which I have referred, and I understood that they would not be selected. I hoped, and I still hope, that the Amendment in page 29, line 15 and the further Amendment in page 29, line 40, to add another new paragraph, will be selected.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Very well.

Clause 22.—(EXERCISE OF POWERS OF DISPOSING OF LAND.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 29, line 15, at the end to insert:
(a) land shall not be sold or let for a term exceeding ninety-nine years except to an

authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies or with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, which may be given generally as regards land sold at a price not exceeding one hundred pounds or let at a rent not exceeding five pounds and otherwise may be given specially.
I am glad that it has been possible for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to see your way to call this Amendment, because it has the one unusual characteristic that everybody can understand it. It will be the one point in the Bill where it will be possible for everybody to see the meaning.
Clause 22 is one of a series of Clauses which we very much welcome on this side of the House and which is designed to give local authorities freedom of action without having to come to the Ministry for permission to buy and sell land, and so on. In general, we entirely agree that this is a right step, and we welcome the Clauses.
One of the proposals in the Clause deals with the question of alienating land which is already in the possession of the local authority. Although we accept the general principle, it is never wise just because one accepts a general principle to assume that it covers every case, and we think that this problem of sales of freehold and long leases is one which requires looking into rather more carefully.
The history of the matter, which is one to which the right hon. Gentleman drew our attention in the Standing Committee, is that the Uthwatt Committee said that once any interest in land has passed into public ownership it should be disposed of by way of lease only and not by way of sale and the authority should have the power to impose such covenants in the lease as planning requirements make desirable, a breach of such covenants to be enforceable by re-entry.
As a result of the Report of the Uthwatt Committee—I have no doubt there was a strong motive in the House at the time—the Eleventh Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act provided that the consent of the Minister would be required for any disposal or appropriation of land under the relevant Section, and paragraph 19 (5) went on:
The consent of the Minister to a sale by a local authority under this section of the freehold in any land, or to a lease by them thereunder of any land for a term of more than ninety-nine years, shall not be given unless he is satisfied that there are exceptional


circumstances which render the disposal of the land in that manner expedient as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section.
That is the law as it is at present. There is a similar requirement in the New Towns Act dealing with new town corporations. The result of it is that it is not only a question of local authorities having to apply to the Minister for consent to sell freeholds or to make long leases, but the Minister may not give his consent unless there are very special reasons for doing it. Therefore, it is going a very long way indeed from that care in husbanding freeholds for the situation to arise in which no consent at all is required and the local authority is completely free to alienate land if it wants to.
When we were discussing this matter in Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was no longer necessary to have this careful control because of the actual working of the 1947 Act. Referring to the Uthwatt Committee recommendations, he said:
That was before the present system of planning control was introduced under the 1947 Act and control of the sort with which we are concerned has been largely removed by the very complete system of control which has followed from the 1947 Act. I sometimes wonder if hon. Members opposite ever reflect on how effective their Act has been over controlled land use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 3rd March, 1959; c. 1054–5.]
That is a very great compliment to the 1947 Act and its architects, but I felt a little aggrieved with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he realised that he was completely destroying the case for the preservation of the leasehold system. I speak as one of the members of the Labour Party who has fought a rearguard action to some extent against leasehold enfranchisement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) must be a very jubilant man because he has found a powerful ally in the Minister.
8.15 p.m.
One of the great arguments which has always been used against leasehold enfranchisement is the fact that leasehold control enables a landlord having an interest in a whole area to lay it out and plan it and see that communal amenities are preserved by enforcing covenants. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that that is not necessary. I think he is probably wrong. From what I have seen

of attempts to enforce the Town and Country Planning Act, I should not think that it was the precise and swift machine that he suggests. I think that even my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, however pleased he may be with this new ally, would agree, as an old and experienced member of the London County Council, that it is not very easy to enforce a town planning condition. We have only to look at the problem of the use of land in London for clubs, which defies all efforts at adequate planning control.
One of the important reasons why local authorities should hesitate very much before they sell freehold is that they have control over a wide area of land, and they should not split it up into the hands of a number of small freeholders.
The next important point is that anyone who has ever been a trustee of a charitable trust and has had to argue the point with the Charity Commission knows that land is an appreciating thing, that it is something in which one can to some extent ensure against changes in the value of money, and that there is always a tremendous reluctance to allow charities to sell land in which they have their assets invested
The same kind of principle arises in the case of a local authority. A local authority faced with the prospect of selling land may find itself confronted with a choice between the advantage of the moment and the long-term disadvantages of losing a valuable asset. It may well be that there is a temptation for a council which is not very prudent and farsighted to give in to pressure from speculators and property developers who want to get hold of the freehold and say to the local authority, "We will not do this work unless you are prepared to give us the freehold." That is a very facile argument often used by developers, and the temptation may be for the local authority, with the greatest good will, to slip into getting rid of a valuable asset which it would he wiser to hold. It is not just a question of the district valuer fixing the full market price. He does that as well as he can; but he cannot judge the political, geographical and town planning factors which enter into the decision as to whether it is wise to hold on to one's real property or to get rid of it.
This is an extraordinary change of front. Previously, we have had very strict


control under which the Minister could not even exercise his discretion to give permission. Now there is to be complete freedom for local authorities, without taking the advice of the Minister, to alienate valuable assets. I should think that is unwise.
Another point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that there was a good deal of difference between, on the one hand, a large holding of land and, on the other hand, small pieces of land left behind as a result of the completion of some operation, which should, in the general interest, be sold off, cases in which it was foolish to ask a large local authority to ask for permission, which would create red tape and delay.
In this Amendment we have endeavoured to meet that point, for what we say is that the
land shall not be sold or let for a term exceeding ninety-nine years except to an authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies"—
which means a more or less public authority—
or with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, which may be given generally as regards land sold at a price not exceeding one hundred pounds or let at a rent not exceeding five pounds".
In other words, it would be possible under the Amendment for the Minister to give a general approval for the sale of small parcels of land, but there would still remain for him a duty with respect to the larger parcels of land because his consent must be given specially if they are to be sold.
It does not seem to me that this is an unreasonable thing to ask. After all, the right hon. Gentleman, I myself and even my hon. and learned Friend are frail human beings, and before long we go to our last account. On the other hand, the local authority goes on for a long period; its assets remain with it; the trust to the people remains. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that we should try to preserve the assets of local authorities. We have had at times in our discussions of the Bill to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being rather drunk wih power. I am pleading with him this time to take a wider view and to see himself in the context of history and to realise that the decision he is taking now may have results quite a long time ahead.
I am always pleading with the right hon. Gentleman just occasionally to make

a concession. I put it to him, would it not be perfectly reasonable to say, when dealing with something as vital and fundamental as the sale of freeholds, or long leases of over 99 years, to keep the requirement of the permission of the Minister, and to abandon it only in the case of the smaller pieces of land or m the case of shorter leases? If only the right hon. Gentleman would do that it would, at any rate, ensure not an absolute prohibition, of course, on sale, but that there would be a period for reflection.
It would be necessary for the local authority, if it decided to take this important step, to go to the Minister for permission, and that would give a little time for reflection of what it was doing and would enable the Minister, even if he were not to refuse his consent, to say, "Have you considered this and that?" and give the local authority an opportunity to deliberate on the full significance of what it was doing. I should have thought this just the kind of gentle, fatherly supervision, which is not dictatorship, which the right hon. Gentleman ought to keep.
It is odd that the right hon. Gentleman who talks about the obduracy of local authorities and how they have to be made to do this, that and the other on a matter like this is so tender towards their susceptibilities. I would suggest that it is not unreasonable to ask him to accept this Amendment, which he may not like altogether, but which is a reasonable compromise and which would enable the matter to be looked at a bit longer, before we make such a drastic change in what has been the law of the land now for twelve years, if not more.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said that the trust to the people remains. However, trust in the people does not seem to be a characteristic of the Opposition, if they support this Amendment, because this shows a clear distrust of the elected local authorities. The hon. Member said, further, that I might not like the Amendment very much, though he hoped that I would accept it. I can assure him that the local authorities would dislike it even more than I do.
When we as a Government—and, I hope, as a Parliament—are seeking to entrust a greater degree of responsibility to the local authorities, it would seem


strange now, by this Amendment, to withdraw from them a power which in the Government's view they ought to have and which they have been allowed to look forward to by the provisions of this Bill.
I outlined the case against this Amendment in Standing Committee. It is quite clear that the hon. Member read what I said. Indeed, he was there at the time. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but he has certainly read what I said, and the overwhelmingly cogent argument which I adduced on that occasion. This Amendment is slightly different from the one we discussed in Standing Committee, because this is what I might call a de minimis provision which is designed to let out certain small transactions—though I must advise the hon. Member that, judging by experience, the limits would have to be put considerably higher than they stand in the Amendment if they were to carry out what I presume is their intention, namely, not to catch small pieces of land which are surplus to requirements.
However, the main question before the House is to what extent local authorities can be trusted to reach a decision relating to the disposal or long leasing of land which they have acquired by agreement. There is no question about it that a local authority cannot acquire land compulsorily and then sell it off under this Clause as it stands. The normal case here is the land which has been acquired by agreement. There are certain categories of land which are excluded from the Clause, land which has been bought compulsorily, as I said, and land which it is proposed to dispose of at less than the best price obtainable.
Perhaps I may say, in passing, that the relaxations which are embodied in the Clause have been agreed with the local authority associations, and the Clause is drafted on the basis that ministerial control should be retained only where it can really be justified. Frankly, this Amendment extends a grandmotherly control to transactions where, in the view of the Government as well as of the local authority associations, there is no reason to fear that the local authorities would act irresponsibly.
8.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Widnes quoted paragraph 147 of the Uthwatt Committee

Report. He mentioned that I had demolished in Committee the case arising out of that paragraph, but, as he referred to it, perhaps I should explain the position again. That passage in the Uthwatt Committee Report was written long before the 1947 Act was passed. It was written because it was believed—and, maybe, rightly believed—at that time during the war that control by the terms of a leasehold disposal was the most satisfactory way of ensuring the proper use of land. The need for control by a public authority through such methods as that has very largely been removed by the complete system of planning which the 1947 Act has brought into use. I venture to say again, even if it upsets the argument of hon. Members, that the Opposition seems sometimes to be unaware of 'how effective the 1947 Act has been in controlling the use of land.
I also said, in reply to the Amendment in Committee, that my Department's estate officers have considerable experience in these matters, experience gained particularly with the redevelopment of war damaged central areas since the war. That, I know, was one of the methods very much in the minds of the Uthwatt Committee. All this experience indicates that it depends on the circumstances of the case whether leasehold or freehold disposal is more advantageous.
It is the considered view of the Government—we have not reached this conclusion lightly —that in any particular case, the choice whether disposal should be made by way of lease or by way of sale should be left to the local authority concerned so long as that local authority is fully apprised of the respective advantages of the two systems. Perhaps I might repeat in the House what I said in Standing Committee, that I have in mind the issue of a circular to local authorities when the Bill is through, giving them such guidance as can be gathered together on the basis of all the experience that they and my Department have had since the war.
Frankly, it comes to this. Do we still think it right that ministerial control should be retained over a wide range of local authority transactions which would be caught by this Amendment, but would be released by the Clause as it stands? I am glad to say that in the Standing


Committee, which had a similar Amendment before it, the matter was not pressed to a Division. I believe that it was because there was a desire to raise the matter again on the Floor of the House on Report, so I am not making anything of that point, but we have argued this matter out twice now, and the Government stand firmly to their view that local authorities are responsible bodies in the sense that it should be left to them to reach their own decision, without ministerial intervention, on the classes of case defined in this Clause.

Mr. Mitchison: I am not altogether surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not read his own Bill. It is both dull and long. I am rather more surprised that he has not read his own speeches in Committee, which were not so long.
The figure of £100 comes from the right hon. Gentleman's own comment. He raised two objections to the Amendment we then put forward. One of them was on the question of small plots of land. This is what he said in one of those sentences which always attract my admiration:
With the small plot it seems out of keeping with the modern conception of the responsibilities of local authorities that they should have to seek Ministerial consent before selling a small plot for, say, £20 or £50, or something of that sort, before granting a lease of that Iand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 3rd March, 1959; c. 1054.]
However expressed, that point seemed to me to have some substance, and it was solely to meet it, as I said at the time, that the Amendment was withdrawn.
We then put in an Amendment, thinking that for once the right hon. Gentleman might not have overstated the matter, and put it up to £100. More than that, we put in another Amendment to provide that the right hon. Gentleman could alter it. If he is not content with that, I do not know what he is content with on that point. He has clearly forgotten his own speech in Committee. I do not blame him for forgetting the reason why I withdrew the Amendment. There is no particular reason why he should pay the attention to my speeches which I reverentially pay to every word which drops from his Ministerial lips. It may be due to the fact that we were told the other day that Ministers never make mistakes but the Opposition may.
What I complain about is that we had a bit more of this stuff about Tory

freedom. I am getting rather tired of Tory freedom, but I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten his own Bill. What we begin with is to remove the need for Ministerial consent. Then we go on to certain exceptions. The third of those exceptions is:
land shall not, except with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, be sold, exchanged or let for a price, consideration or rent less than the best price, best consideration or best rent (as the case may be) that can reasonably be obtained, having regard to any restrictions or conditions subject to which it is sold, exchanged or let:
Therefore, Tory freedom does not apply to the price. It applies only to the questions whether one can sell.
Exactly what the political philosophy is that says that one can trust local authorities to sell or let land which they have acquired, but one cannot trust them to do it at anything other than the highest price and for that purpose Ministerial consent must be obtained, completely passes my understanding. If there is anything in the plea that we should trust local authorities, sub-paragraph (c) ought to be out of the Bill and ought never to have been in it. On the other hand, if there is anything in what we are putting forward there still remains the question whether sub-paragraph (c) is necessary.
Local authorities, so far as I know, have never had any very great grievance. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us that they have any great grievance. Moreover, I wonder whether he has considered the effect of the second of the two Amendments which we are now discussing. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman to raise the figure of £100, if he likes, to £1,000, £5,000, £10,000 or £50,000, and to make a corresponding increase in the figure relating to long leases. He can do that. When he does it, he will be answerable to questions in Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman said that local authorities were elected. We have been telling him so all along. We had to remind him of that in connection with new towns. We shall probably have to do it in connection with many other matters. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that he, too, is elected and answerable to Parliament?
We think that the disposal of land, certainly on any large scale, has been the subject of Ministerial consent because it is recognised as involving questions that


go beyond the ordinary scope of a local authority's dealings, and especially so in relation to sizeable pieces of land.
There has been no great hardship. The right hon. Gentleman told us with pride that his Departmental officers knew all about it and had given most valuable advice in connection with sales of this sort and other matters relating to land. It is a very remarkable proposition that a Government which insist on controlling local authorities in relation to the price of the sale should then say that they absolutely decline to control them in the fact of the sale and that, provided that it is the higher price, local authorities can sell £1 million worth of land without any leave from the Government.
On the other hand, if it is the wrong price even the £20 or £50 plots of land about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke in Committee are subject to Ministerial control. If, instead of the £20, all that they are to receive is £19 19s. 11½d., the right hon. Gentleman's consent is required. It is a fantastic line to draw. In face of what was said by the Uthwatt Committee and in face of the considerations which have moved this legislation for a long time, I must decline to accept the kind of argument advanced today.
There is another side to it. It may be that local authorities sometimes do and

sometimes do not require formal consent from the Minister to buy land. In the case of a compulsory acquisition, I think that it is right to say that they always, or at any rate almost always, do. Even in cases of purchases by agreement, those purchases are specifically described in the statutes relating to the functions of local authority. They can be made only for certain purposes and within certain limits, and above all there is the financial check that the Ministry still exercises on the activities of local authorities.

I do not say that it is wrong, but it is true to say that whether by that financial check or by statutory provisions relating to compulsory purchases local authorities are very considerably controlled in the buying of land, and are further controlled in the price at which they sell land. It is only on the "aye" or "no" of the sale itself that the right hon. Gentleman feels that Tory freedom is involved. It is a distinction that I do not appreciate. I do not know his reason for this change, and he has not told us, except in such general terms as to be wholly inapplicable to the case we have to consider having regard to the other provisions of the Bill.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 211.

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[8.40 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Janner, B.


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Blackburn, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Boardman, H.
Foot, D. M.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Forman, J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Brockway, A. F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
King, Dr. H. M.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Anthony
Lawson, G. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Grey, C. F.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hale, Leslie
Logan, D. G.


Carmichael, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hannan, W.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Champion, A. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
MacCann, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hastings, S.
MacColl, J. E.


Coldrick, W.
Hayman, F. H.
Mclnnes, J.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
McKay, John (Wallsend)



 Hcrbison. Miss M.
 McLeavy, Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holman, P.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Cronin, J. D.
Holmes, Horace
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Mason, Roy


Deer, G.
Hoy, J. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Diamond, John
Hunter, A. E.
Moody, A. S.


Dugdale, Bt. Hn. John (W. Brmwich)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Morris, Percy (Swansea W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon, J. C.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Morrison, Rt.Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm.S.)


Edelman, M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Mort, D. L.




Moss, R.
Reynolds, G. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Moyle, A.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Neal, Harold (Botsover)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Timmons, J.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tomney, F.


Oliver, G. H.
Ross, William
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Oswald, T.
Royle, C.
Viant, S. P.


Owen, W. J.
Short, E. W.
Warbey, W. N.


Padley, W. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pannell, Charles (Leeds W.)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Parker, J.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Paton, John
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Pentland, N.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Prentice, R. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Probert, A. R.
Steele, T.
Winterbottom, Richard


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stonehouse, John
Woof, R. E.


Randall, H. E.
Stross, Dr.Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Redhead, E. C.
Sylvester, G. O.
Zilliacus, K.


Reeves, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)



Reid, William
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Aitken, W. T.
Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Freeth, Denzil
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Gammans, Lady
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Armstrong, C. W.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maddan, Martin


Ashton, H.
Glover, D.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Atkins, H. E.
Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Gower, H. R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Barter, John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Batsford, Brian
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Green, A.
Mathew, R.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grimond, J.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mawby, R. L.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Bidgood, J. C.
Gurden, Harold
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Body, R. F.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholls, Harmar


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. amp; Chr'ch)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hesketh, R. F.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Brooman-White, R, C.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bryan, P.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)


Carr, Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, C.



Holland-Martin, C. J.
Page, R. G.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hope, Lord John
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornby, R. P.
Partridge, E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peel, W. J.


Cole, Norman
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peyton, J, W. W.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cooke, Robert
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Pitman, I. J.


Corfreld, F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pott, H. P.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crowrter, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ramsden, J. E.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Redmayne, M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kershaw, J. A.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, P. M.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Deedes, W. F.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Renton, D. L. M.


de Ferranti, Basil
Leather, E. H. C.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Leavey, J. A.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robson Brown, Sir William


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Roper, Sir Harold


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Russell, R. S.


Duncan, Sir James
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Sharples, R. C.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Shepherd, William


Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Longden, Gilbert
Speir, R. M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, Walter H.
Spence, R. H. (Aberdeen, W.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Fell, A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford amp; Chiswick)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard







Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Webster, David


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Storey, S.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Summers, Sir Spencer
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wade, D. W.
Woollam, John Victor


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Teeling, W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)



Temple, John M.
Wall, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Ward, Rt. Hon. C. R. (Worcester)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Thomas, P. J M. (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Mr. Gibson-Watt.

Clause 23.—(APPLICATION OF CAPITAL MONEY ON DISPOSAL OF LAND.)

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 32, line 31, to leave out "one hundred pounds" and to insert "the relevant limit".
If you agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that it will be convenient to take the next three Amendments, in lines 41 and 46, and in page 33, line 8, with the Amendment that I have just moved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker indicated assent.

Mr. Bevins: When the application of capital moneys on the sale of land was considered in Committee my right hon. Friend expressed the view that the proper financial principle which ought to be reflected in the Bill was that the proceeds of money derived from the sale of land should be applied in a way which was consistent with the permanent character of the assets which they replaced. He accordingly argued that it would he wrong in principle for capital moneys which stood in the place of long-term assets, such as the ownership of land, to he applied to very short-term purposes. At the same time, there was a feeling among hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that the provisions then embodied in the Bill were perhaps slightly grandmotherly, and too restrictive in their impact upon local authorities.
The effect of the Amendments can be described briefly. First, the period which determines whether a loan has a sufficiently long period outstanding to qualify as a purpose to which capital money may properly be applied is to he reduced from twenty years to fifteen years. The other relaxations to which we are proposing to give effect are, first, to delete the present limit for the de minimus provision for £100 and to substitute the relevant limit which is now defined in a new subsection (3). The limit for counties, county boroughs or the City of London is raised to £1,000, and in the

case of all those authorities the product of 1d. rate would well exceed that sum.
For county district councils or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, the limit is to be £1,000 or the product of 1d. rate, whichever is the less, and for any other local authority, as defined in the Fourth Schedule—which includes such bodies as statutory water undertakings, joint boards, and so forth—the relevant limit is to be £500. This is a compromise figure. The product of 1d. rate would not be appropriate for most of these bodies but, on the other hand, £1,000 might he too high. In drafting the Amendments my right hon. Friend has tried to meet the sense of the criticisms expressed both by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

Mr. Mitchison: As the hon. Member has said, the previous arrangements were rather grandmotherly. Although granny, in recognition of the spring, is a little more frisky, she is still a very staid old lady. The Amendments do not go very far. In Committee, we suggested that in this matter the Scots have a far greater freedom than the English, and that there was no reason why granny should look after the English in this assiduous way while allowing the Scots to run free. That argument did not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. They have one firm principle, which is never to accept any suggestion of substance made by the Opposition. We get little bits of chicken feed from time to time, but that is all.
We have argued this point in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman has frankly said that this is a compromise suggestion. He has come some of the way. I do not suppose he can tell us without reference what the product of a 1d. rate in the County of Rutland is, but it would be quite interesting to know.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 32, line 41, leave out "twenty" and insert "fifteen".

In line 46, leave out "twenty" and insert "fifteen".

In page 33, line 8, at end insert:
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection, the relevant limit shall be ascertained as follows, that is to say—

(a) in the case of capital money received by the council of a county, county borough or metropolitan borough, or by the Common Council of the City of London, the relevant limit shall be the sum of one thousand pounds;
(b) in the case of capital money received by the council of a county district, or by the Council of the Isles of Scilly, the relevant limit shall be whichever is the lesser of the two following amounts, that is to say, the sum of one thousand pounds, and the amount estimated for the purposes of subsection (2) of section nine of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, to be the product, for the financial year in which the capital money is to be applied, of a rate of one penny in the pound for the rating area consisting of that county district, or of the Isles of Scilly, as the case may be;
(c) in the case of capital money received by any other authority to whom this Part of this Act applies, the relevant limit shall be the sum of five hundred pounds.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 31.—(RIGHTS OF OWNERS WHERE APPLICATION MADE FOR PLANNING PERMISSION.)

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 45, line 15, at the end to insert:
(d) the local planning authority may decline to deal with the application if it is of opinion that the applicant has no legal or equitable interest in the whole of the land which is the subject of the application or does not produce the written consent of a person who has such an interest to the application being made.
We had a long argument in Committee on a rather similar Amendment. Very shortly, the point is that local authorities are perturbed about the extent to which individuals who have no legal interest or rights in a piece of land can nevertheless, submit a planning application. Such applications have to go through the normal machinery and the Departments, and every one has to be separately considered in relation not only to the site for which permission is required but in connection with all the relevant matters on adjacent sites. This may involve quite a number of visits to the place of prospective development, and yet everyone knows,

including those dealing with the application, that there is not the slightest possibility that it will be followed by any real development.
I do not know whether London attracts more cranks than other places, but I know that, over the years, the London County Council has received a number of propositions which never had a chance of being turned into real developments. A planning application was submitted to create a market garden on top of Covent Garden. One has only to think of what this would involve to realise how absurd such a proposition would be. This application was put in without any reference to the lessees, the owners of Covent Garden, or anybody else. The proposer had no legal right in Covent Garden, or, indeed, in any adjacent land. Yet, it was necessary for that application to be considered in the normal way, because appeal could be made to the Minister and it would be necessary for the planning authority to be able to give concisely and conclusively its reasons for dealing with the application.
Local authorities therefore think that there should be a limit to this right and that they should have some discretion in regard to planning applications which, on the face of it, are either farcical or so remote from any possible development that they ought not to waste the time of planning authorities, who will be heavily occupied.
9.0 p.m.
It is thought that the most practical way would be for the local authority to have the right not to proceed further with an application if the applicant has no interest in a site or if he cannot produce the written consent of the person who has an interest in it. This would give all legitimate protection to anybody who might have an interest. At the same time, it would prevent a great deal of unnecessary work which can never lead to development by the hard-pressed planning authorities. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he acknowledges the point of the Amendment and will either accept it or have a provision inserted in another place to prevent this abuse of planning powers.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). The Amendment deals with a commonsense point which should be accepted if we are to have some sort of order in the procedure for the giving of planning approvals. As my hon. Friend said, anybody can make an application to a local planning authority for permission to develop a piece of land for a certain purpose when he is not the owner of it, and has no real interest in it, and when it may well be known that the owner of the land would not be prepared to sell it at any price for any purpose. Nor is the number of applications limited to one. Local planning authorities may well have in their files concerning a site a number of applications of this kind for planning permission to develop the piece of land for a number of different uses. Eash application may be different from the one which preceded it.
When a local planning authority gives a planning permission, it cannot revoke that permission without incurring the liability for compensation. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the Amendment, to say whether there is any limit in time to the validity of planning permission being given to persons who are not the owners of the land and who have no chance whatever of acquiring it.
To take an extreme case, if for one site there are, say, five or six applications—or there might be as many as ten, fifteen or twenty applications—it would be possible in course of time for a variety of uses to be applied for. When these planning permissions are given, how long will they remain valid? Will it be for five years, ten years, fifteen years or twenty years? Once the planning permission is given, it cannot be revoked by the local planning authority without incurring the liability for compensation.
I know that the only person who can claim compensation is the owner of the land and not the person making the application. Nevertheless, a large number of local authorities are placed in considerable difficulties where these planning permissions are given to people who do not own the land, who have no interest in it and who have no prospect whatever of acquiring it.
There is another factor. As we all know, the designation of the uses of land

may well vary with the passing of time. A development plan is valid for five years, after which it is revised. Although no great or substantial variations might be made in the revised plan as compared with the previous plan, nevertheless adjustments from time to time are made. In a revised development plan it might well be that a piece of land which previously was planned for residential purposes is shown as having a use for open space. It might be shown for industrial use. It might be shown for some other use. It might be an industrial piece of land which, in the revised development plan, may be designated for open space or residential. There are a number of connotations which could be considered in connection with the designated use of the land over a period.
It makes the question of sensible planning complicated to follow, because if a series of planning permissions have been given to a person who is not the owner of the land, and is never likely to have it, and then the use of that land is changed in the revised development plan, what is the situation of the local planning authority which has planning permission outstanding for a piece of land over which, in the revised development plan, those uses would no longer apply? It is not clearly understood whether the previous planning permissions have ceased to have any effect when the revised development plan comes into operation.
These are all important points which the hon. Gentleman should explain when he answers this debate. Whether he accepts the Amendment or not, I feel sure that the time is drawing near when some sensible procedure must be adopted about planning permissions. They are being stacked by the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, in the offices of local planning authorities, and in the case of many of them there is no hope of carrying them out because the owner of the land does not want to sell it and may, indeed, want it for a purpose of his own.
Therefore, I feel that when applications for planning permission are submitted to a local planning authority they ought to be accompanied either by an indication from the owner of the land that he himself is interested in the form of development or that he is prepared to dispose of the land. Or perhaps we could insist that application for planning permission should come only from the owner of the


land. That would be far the better way of laying down this procedure.
In Standing Committee the right hon. Gentleman inferred that if this were done new development would be retarded, but he did not advance any reasons in advance of that contention. As a matter of fact, I do not think anything of the kind would happen. I cannot see how development would be retarded because, in the first place, if the man who owns the land is not prepared to sell it no development takes place—that is, privately if, of course, the local authority wants to acquire the land it is a different matter.
So I feel that there are good and substantial reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should accept this Amendment. If he is not satisfied with its form, then he should suggest some amended form of words which will restrict planning applications to realistic applications which, if granted, can be carried out or developed on the land concerned. I do not think anyone who has no interest in the land ought to be entitled to put forward application for planning permission for the land of some other person. It is not necessary even to see the owner of the land and ask, "Do you mind if I make application?"
There are cases in which the first knowledge which the owner of the land has about this is from the local paper. He sees it reported that somebody he has never heard of before,—it may be an individual from Timbuctoo or somewhere else—has made an application to the local planning authority to put a garden above Covent Garden or something ridiculous like that, or it may be an application for a reasonable form of use about which, nevertheless, he knows nothing whatsoever. I am sure there are lots of planning permissions registered in the files of local planning authorities for the use of certain pieces of land which are unknown to the owners. That seems to be an absurd and ridiculous situation.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to throw a little light on this matter and will agree to make some change in this procedure in order to cut out these superfluous and fictitious applications which are cluttering up the files of the local planning authorities and limit applications to genuine projects which have a reasonable chance of being carried out if and when approval is given by the local planning authority.

Mr. Skeffington: Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, may I put another point about this Amendment? We arrived at this Clause more speedily than I had anticipated.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that there is the safeguard of the certificate under Clause 3 but a number of instances have come to light in which the information on the certificate was either misleading or false. In one particular case of which I know there was an application to build a helidrome—a place where helicopters can land—at one of the railway stations—I think it was Charing Cross. The information given on the certificate was quite valueless and in this particular case there was an objection. British Railways were strongly opposed to the proposition but nevertheless it had to go through all the planning machinery. I should therefore be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could deal with this certification process which is not really a safeguard at all.

Mr. Bevies: I think that perhaps the House might be well advised before we come to a decision on the terms of this Amendment to have regard to the fact that Clause 31, as it is now in the Bill, was put into the Bill to meet a recommendation of the Franks Committee. The recommendation of that Committee was simply that owners and others directly interested in land should be informed of third party planning applications, and should be allowed to state their views.
The object of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, as I understand it, is to enable planning authorities to avoid dissipating their time and energies in dealing with schemes that are put forward either frivolously, or, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said in Committee, by "naked speculators", and, generally speaking, putting forward applications which are never likely to lead to schemes which materialise.
What the hon. Gentleman is trying to do in the Amendment is to give planning authorities the discretion to refuse to deal with applications for planning permission if, in the opinion of the planning authority, the applicant holds no interest in the whole of the land, and does not produce the written consent of the owner of such an interest, that is to say, of the whole of the land.
9.15 p.m.
A number of hon. Members will remember that a not dissimilar Amendment was debated and rejected in Committee. It is equally true that this differs from the earlier Amendment in the sense that this refers to "the whole of the land" instead of to "the land". Those words are probably used to meet the point made by my right hon. Friend in Committee, that the applicants could satisfy the conditions by getting the consent of the owner of only a minor interest.
The new version goes from one extreme to the other and the owner who gives written consent under the terms of the present Amendment must hold an interest in the whole of the land. The House will see that in many cases, especially with big schemes, there might not be a single owner with an interest in the whole of the land. In such a case, the planning authority would enjoy a very wide discretion on whether to deal with the application.
That might be a criticism of the drafting rather than the principle which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It is perfectly true that a similar proposition has been considered by my right hon. Friend, as he promised earlier. However, it is still the feeling of my right hon. Friend that the objections to attempting to do something on these lines are far greater than the advantages which would flow from it.
What is proposed would go a good deal beyond the Franks recommendations, but the most important and cogent reason against attempting to do anything of this kind is that to require developers not only to notify owners, but also to get their consent will be a brake on development.
There is, no doubt, the odd case of the chap who wants to build a forest on Covent Garden, but let us keep a sense of perspective. There has been a considerable amount of worth-while development, certainly in my time, in the last ten or twenty years, by people who, when they made their planning applications, were not the owners of the land, but who succeeded in their planning applications and subsequently were able to negotiate the ownership of the land.
I am not gainsaying for a moment that some of these applications may have been

made by speculators of a not very good type, but there are plenty of people in the building trade and a great variety of other trades who do a worthwhile job. It would be quite wrong to frustrate their work by saying that they would not only have to notify the owner of the land, but get his consent before making an application for planning permission.

Mr. Sparks: Why not?

Mr. Bevins: If they succeed in getting planning permission for, say, building, they will have to negotiate the ownership of the land as well.

Mr. Sparks: Is there something in the application which a prospective applicant would not want the owner of the land to know about? Is he trying to get permission to do something with the land which he wants to withhold from the owner? It seems a fair proposition that the owner should be advised that an application is to be made and that he should be asked to give consent, whether he agrees to sell or not. That seems to be the sensible and moral thing to do.

Mr. Bevins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Bill a certificate has to be produced stating that the applicant has given the requisite notice of the application to the owner. The owner is in no way prejudiced because a planning application is made by a third party. The owner is a perfectly free agent, whether planning permission is granted or refused—

Mr. Sparks: But he may object.

Mr. Bevins: —to sell or not to sell the land to a particular person for a particular use. If the owner objects, he is under no compulsion whatever to sell the land to A, to B or to C.

Mr. Sparks: But he cannot stop the application being made, which is probably what he would want to do.

Mr. Bevins: There is no reason in equity or common sense why he should be free to do so—

Mr. Sparks: Oh, yes, there is.

Mr. Bevins: —and moreover, my right hon. Friend takes the view that this Amendment is objectionable because under its terms everything would rest on the opinion of the planning authority.


The authority would have unfettered discretion to decide that an applicant had no interest in the land and thereupon decline to deal with the application. Of course, there would be no right of appeal.
It is conceivable that the Amendment could result in embarrassment to a local authority such as the London County Council, if the L.C.C. wished to develop land in the area of another local planning authority. If its proposals happened to be unpopular, under the terms of the Amendment they could be frustrated. Or it is conceivable that a nationalised industry might wish to develop land and be unable to get the consent of the owner. A local planning authority might dislike the proposal and refuse to entertain the application.
I make no attempt to conceal the fact that this is a difficult matter and there are many facets to it. But we should be most unwise to accept the proposal which is inherent in the Amendment. I feel it would act as a brake to what very often is perfectly fair and legitimate development of one kind or another. My right hon. Friend has given a lot of thought to what has been said in our earlier deliberations, and he cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Sparks: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my point about what happens upon the revision of a development plan which may provide for a change of use of a piece of land for which planning permission has already been given under the original plan. When planning permission has once been given, it cannot be revoked by the planning authority without the payment of compensation. What happens in a situation where the development plan is revised and no development has been carried out on a piece of land, but the proposed use is changed? What is the position of a local authority regarding compensation?

Mr. Bevins: I cannot see what possible relevance that can have to this subject.

Mr. Sparks: It has great relevance.

Mr. Mitchison: I think that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have been a little hard on my hon. Friend and on the local authorities for whom he is speaking. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that if the London County Council met the sort of difficulty he

described, nothing would be simpler than for the authority to come to the Minister and ask him to call in the applications, which I am sure he would do in the circumstances. May I warn the hon. Gentleman of the dangers which may come upon him? I have been examining the planning legislation and I find that there is no reason why planning applications should not be made by outside persons in respect of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Plots are in the air and they should not be confined only to Colonial Office ones. As a matter of fact my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and I have a plot. I can give it away to the hon. Gentleman now because that will not prevent us from concocting another on a larger scale. That is something that happens with plots. My hon. Friend proposes to get a planning application to put a café bar on top of the Ministry, but I am going to do something far more sinister. I am going to provide for the erection of a home on top of the Ministry to house tenants evicted under the Rent Act, and that will prove very awkward for the Minister.
These are, of course, absurd instances, but so were the instances given by my hon. Friend. It is a little rough if steps cannot be taken to prevent busy local authorities having to deal with what are quite obviously frivolous projects. If, in fact, a local authority cannot be trusted to exercise a certain amount of common sense and discretion in a case of this sort, it ought not to be there.
As to the naked speculator whose only resemblance to the bare trustee is that neither of them has a beneficial interest in the property in question, does one want to encourage this nude gentleman? What is the point of doing so? He can upset all the previous provisions of the Bill about compulsory compensation on compulsory acquisition. He may get a whole lot of planning permissions which would confuse the issue beyond words and all of which would have to be taken into account when it came to assessing compensation if the property was going to be acquired, and he might do it having no interest whatever in the property, as the Bill stands at present.
We are told that planning permissions may make a lot of difference, sometimes one way and sometimes the other. Be that as it may. We have been talking


about them for hours on the assumption that they had, at any rate, some importance in the question of compensation to be paid. What is the position if this naked speculator comes in and gets a whole collection of planning permissions and thereby upsets, in one way or another, the amount of compensation payable to the person who actually owns the land? There ought to be a little more application to this problem. I can see that the Amendment put forward might or might not fully meet the case, but the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that he and his right hon. Friend have given deep and constant thought to it, or whatever the standard expression for this kind of light meditation is, and at the end of it produces precisely nothing. He recognises the difficulty, does nothing to help the local authorities, and he runs the risk of planning permission for a stable of elephants being obtained in respect of his own Ministry. Ought he not to think better of it?

Amendment negatived.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 46, line 19, to leave out "three" and to insert "ten".
This Amendment fulfils a promise given in Committee to amend the definition of owner in its Scottish application for the purposes of this Clause which deals with the duty of applicants to certify they have notified owners and the right of owners as defined by the Clause to have their representations heard by the planning authority. It includes in the definition only lessees with an unexpired tenancy of not less than ten years in place of lessees with tenancies with not less than three years to run. In Committee a similar Amendment was accepted for England and I gave an undertaking that it would be applied to Scotland.

Mr. Willis: We cannot allow the Amendment to go by quite so easily without drawing attention to the fact that this is, once again, an example of how we have been dragged along at the heels of England in this matter. That does not make it any the better. The plain fact is that the Scottish draftsman and officials, considering this in the first place, thought that three was quite sufficient to meet Scottish conditions. We have never had, neither in Committee nor in the House up to the present, an explanation of why it must be altered for Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman gave us no reason at all in Committee. All he said was that he was going to do it. He gave no reason why he was making a change and he has given no reason tonight.
9.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised a number of questions in the Committee about the Clause, and referred to the Long Leases (Scotland) Act and other Acts. He asked what effect the Bill would have on tenants holding tenancies under those Acts. There was no reply to that. The Joint Under-Secretary of State ought to give us something better than we have had. Otherwise, we are bound to feel that we are being trailed along at the heels of England and that we are not legislating in the interests of Scotland but in the interests of uniformity.

Mr. Macpherson: I can give a further explanation. If we are being trailed along at the heels of England I can only say that the original Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). It can hardly be said, in view of that fact, that we are being trailed at the heels of England.

Mr. Willis: He did not quote Scotland.

Mr. Macpherson: We had time to consider the Amendment before it was accepted and then we considered it for Scotland, although we did not actually move the Amendment for Scotland in Committee. That is what we are doing now. The reason why we accepted the Amendment is that this is not a question of vital importance to the owner. The mere fact that an owner is not notified under the Clause does not diminish his right to refuse to pant with his land for the development permitted by the planning permission.
The rights conferred on owners are fairly limited under subsection (1, b). They may receive notification, which is equal to conveying notification by publication in the local newspaper. On the other hand, it gives the owner, as defined in the Clause, a right to be heard by the local planning authority. That does not mean either that it will only be the owner as defined in the Clause who will be heard by the local planning authority. The difference is simply that it is only the owner as defined in the Clause that is


given the right to be heard by the local planning authority.
This is a question of degree, of how far we are to extend the burden on the prospective developer in the way of notification, and of how far we are to extend the burden on the planning authority in the way of obliging it to consider representations. We consider that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns made the case for ten years. He said, if I remember aright, that it was difficult to reach an exact figure and that it might be seven, ten or twelve; at any rate, it was certain that three years would be too small a period. We accepted that view, and we took ten years.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) now asks about the other Acts that were mentioned in the Committee. The Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1951, was mentioned, but that was a stopgap Measure and it was overtaken by the Long Leases (Scotland) Act, 1954. The position might arise a little later that it will be a very tight race whether that Act expires before this Bill actually comes into force. The period between the two is so small that, for the purposes of the Clause, it is utterly negligible.
Year to year leases, as I explained in Committee, would not come in, in any case. Whether for houses, shops or any sort of property, they would be excluded in any case. We think that fixing the time at ten years is about right. One cannot talk with any certainty in this matter, but there is no reason why there should be any difference between Scotland and England on this point. There is no difference in conditions of law or anything else—

Mr. Willis: Yes, there is.

Mr. Macpherson: Not on this particular point. This is a question of administration, the principles of which would apply equally in Scotland as in England.

Mr. Ross: Will the Joint Under-Secretary apply his mind once again to the question I put to him about people who are presently holders of leases in particular parts of Scotland but who are covered by the terms of the Long Leases (Scotland) Act, 1954? That Act gave

the right to holders of particular leases if they made application within five years—and the five years will not be up until about July this year—to have their leases even with one year or two years to run. They are denied the right of ownership under this interpretation. They were given the right to become owners if they so wanted merely on application. It is the leasehold reform which many English and Welsh people would like to have applied to England and Wales.
I do not think it good enough for the Joint Under-Secretary to say that the race will be so tight and the number of people concerned utterly negligible. We should consider the Clauses affecting Scotland that are being put into the Bill and remember that the Solicitor-General for Scotland could not trace an actual case. We are told that this is purely academic for Scotland, yet the Government insist on legislating for something which is purely academic. Here is something which we know is to happen. These people may be denied the right of ownership even though their lease is less than ten years and probably before the end of five or six months the number probably will be extended. They will be owners.
It is not good enough for the Joint Under-Secretary to ride off the argument in this way. When the matter was raised in Standing Committee, the Solicitor-General and he were taken quite by surprise. They had forgotten the existence of these people. I do not think there are any in Ayrshire, but I know there are some in Lanarkshire, and there there is a marginal constituency. In Stonehouse, of all places, we have a position which might well sway the Lanark seat. The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) is not present to defend the interests of these people. I think that a scandal, but I think it more of a scandal that the Joint Under-Secretary, after the Government had promised to look at the matter, and having recognised the difficulty, should now say "There will be this difficulty and injustice, but it will not affect so many people." I hope that he will have another look at the matter before the Bill passes through another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32.—(OBLIGATION TO PURCHASE RESIDENT OWNER-OCCUPIER'S IN TEREST AFFECTED BY PLANNING PROPOSALS.)

Amendment proposed: In page 47, line 17, leave out "(d)" and insert "(f)".—[Mr. Bevins.]

Mr. MacColl: I suppose that the paragraphs got into the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Bevins: Mr. Bevins indicated assent.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 48, line 5, to leave out "or part".

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has a number of other Amendments on this page of the Notice Paper. I suggest that we take them together, with the exception of the Amendment in line 10, to leave out "three" and insert "ten", which we could take later.

Mr. Skeffington: With respect, Mr. Speaker, there are three separate sets of Amendments. The first Amendment which I have just moved and the Amendment in line 6, after "dwelling", insert:
or in the case of a hereditament of which part only is used as a private dwelling occupies the whole of that part
can go together, and then the Amendments in line 16, to leave out "or part", and in line 16 at the end to insert:
or in the case of a hereditament of which part only is used as a private dwelling occupied the whole of that part".
That is one point. There is the separate point covered by the Amendment in line 10, to leave out "three" and insert "ten". The Amendment in line 13, to leave out "that" and insert "the relevant" would go with the Amendment in line 18, leave out from first "the" to "the" in line 19 and insert "relevant date". I might, for the convenience of the House, speak on the first four that I have indicated and then subsequently deal with the others.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must act as he thinks best. He has now moved the Amendment in line 5. If he will indicate to the House which Amendments he discusses with it I shall mark them off and see that we keep matters straight.

Mr. Skeffington: I propose that we take with the Amendment I have moved

the Amendments in line 6, in line 16 to leave out "or part", and in line 16, at the end to insert:
or in the case of a hereditament of which part only is used as a private dwelling occupied the whole of that part".
The Clause as drafted enables a resident owner-occupier of the land affected by certain planning proposals specified in subsection (1), which has been as a result rendered unsaleable or saleable only at a very considerably reduced price, to serve on the appropriate acquiring authority notice asking it to purchase its interest. The resident owner-occupier is defined in subsection (6) as a person who
(a) occupies the whole or part of the hereditament as a private dwelling in the right of a freehold interest therein or in right of a tenancy granted or extended for a term … of which not less than three years remain unexpired …
and has been in occupation of the hereditament or that part of it, as the case may be, during the whole of the period of six months ending with the date of the service of the notice, or (b) has occupied in such capacity the whole or part of the hereditament for
a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of the service by him of such a notice …
the premises having been occupied since the end of that period.
The local authorities view with some concern the inclusion of a resident owner-occupier of part of the hereditament in the Clause having regard to the definition of a hereditament in subsection (7) as being
… the aggregate of the land which forms the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for the time being in force for a rating area.
It would, therefore, appear that the Clause would cover the case of an owner of a large house which has been let off to persons in a number of single rooms and of which the owner occupies one or two rooms.
9.45 p.m.
The Clause as drafted would enable the owner-occupier in cases to which it applied to serve a notice on the authority concerned to require it to purchase the premises with vacant possession of one or two rooms only. In other words, it would have possession of a property which would be no use whatever to it. In addition, the Clause could saddle a


local authority with a large number of houses occupied by a number of people and scattered all over an area, with consequent additional expenditure for maintenance and management quite unjustified by any of the statutory duties which the authority would have to fulfil.
It is clear from our discussions upstairs that the Clause is not really designed even by the Government to further the interests of owner-occupiers of this kind. It would seem both wrong and unjust if such owners could take advantage of the Clause as drafted. The four Amendments to which I am speaking now would, if accepted, ensure that owner-occupiers of property falling within the Clause would be only owner-occupiers of the whole hereditament. That is the purpose of the Amendments. They would not exclude the owner-occupier of a shop-cum-dwelling house. That is, at any rate, the intention of the Amendments, but in a subject of this complexity one is never quite certain that one has covered every possible complication. It would, I think, still include the owner-occupier of a shop-cum-dwelling house.
I hope that the Minister will feel that it would be quite wrong to allow the provisions of the Clause to be abused in the case I have mentioned, for which it was never intended, and will agree that it cannot be in the public interest that such a development should occur.

Mr. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend referred to the example of an owner who may occupy one or two rooms in a 10-room house. I came across a case the other day in a redevelopment area where a man and his wife owned three such houses and in each had reserved two rooms for their occupation. How they managed to reside in two rooms in three different houses at the same time, I do not know. Each house, apart from the two rooms reserved for the owner, was let, single rooms to some tenants, two or three rooms to other tenants, and so forth.
The Amendment is designed to introduce a much fairer definition of "owner-occupier". It is quite obvious in the case I have mentioned that such a person could not be a genuine owner-occupier. He is making a business out of letting

rooms in large houses. It was never intended that such a person should be regarded as a genuine owner-occupier. There might be something to be said if he resided in only one house, having his residence in a part of that and sub-letting the remainder. We know that there are cases where there would otherwise be a surplus of accommodation not used.
We ought to be quite sure, when considering whether to admit the owner-occupier who occupies a part only of his dwelling-house, that we are dealing with a real owner-occupier who is genuinely living in a reasonable part of the house, and not living in one room himself and letting out ten, fifteen or more rooms to someone else. The Clause as it stands appears to leave the door wide open to bring in a range of people who are not the genuine owner-occupiers we all wish to help in this connection.
The Amendment endeavours to prevent such an abuse arising. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be sympathetic in his attitude towards this series of Amendments, because I am certain that unless there is a much more clear definition in the Bill as to who is a genuine owner-occupier it will let in many—I will not say undesirable people—but people whom I am sure we do not intend to benefit by the Clause in cases where they are running a business and are not genuine owner-occupiers in the sense that we expect.

Mr. Bevins: What the House is currently discussing is the definition of "owner-occupier" for the purpose of empowering certain people to dispose of their interests under Clause 32 in cases of blight. It would appear from the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen that they feel that the present definition in the Clause is too wide. If one is to go by the speech of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), the Amendments are directed against the wicked landlord who lives in one part of the house and lets off the rest of it at exorbitant rents.

Mr. Sparks: Or lives in three houses.

Mr. Bevins: Or, to add the rider of the hon. Member for Acton, lives in three houses and lets them all off at exorbitant rents. I do not see that that matters.
The question to which the House has to address its mind is whether the group


of Amendments would achieve the purpose which the hon. Gentleman quite clearly had in mind. These four Amendments say that an owner-occupier would qualify under Clause 32 only where, first, the whole of the hereditament is a private dwelling and he himself occupies the whole of that private dwelling—that is a perfectly simple case—or, secondly, where part of the hereditament is a private dwelling and he occupies the whole of that part.
What would the Amendments do? To begin with, they would exclude from the scope of Clause 32 any owner-occupier if he sub-let simply one room. He might have a house which contained ten rooms altogether occupied by a middle-aged gentleman and his wife who had let off one bedroom to a third party. In those circumstances, under the terms of the Amendments, the owner-occupier would be prevented from disposing of his interests under Clause 32.
What I think is worse is that the effect of the Amendments in practice would be inconsistent. If, for example, a hereditament consisted partly of a house and partly of a shop, the owner would be entitled to sell his interest in the whole of the hereditament even though the shop portion was sub-let. That follows from the second leg of the Amendment. On the other hand, if the part sub-let was not a shop but was part of the dwelling, the owner would be excluded from the provisions of the Clause.
For those reasons, I cannot honestly feel that the Amendments achieve anything that is by any stretch of the imagination desirable. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) cares to analyse their detailed effects he will probably agree that the Amendments are ill-conceived.

Mr. Willis: The Parliamentary Secretary has told the House why these Amendments should not be accepted, but he has not replied to the very pertinent remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). My hon. Friend quoted a specific case in which it was quite clear that certain difficulties arise, and the hon. Member might have addressed himself to it. Surely he could have admitted that this was a real problem and could have said that, even though he was unable to accept the Amendments because of certain

difficulties, he would look at the matter again.

Mr. Bevins: It is wise when discussing Amendments to discuss them. That is what I have tried to do.

Mr. Sparks: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what an owner-occupier is? Is he a person who lives in one house, or is he a person who may live in more than one at the same time?

Mr. Bevins: I think it would be abuse of the privileges of the House at this time of evening to give the definition of owner-occupier, which is quite clearly stated in Clause 32.

Mr. Skeffington: I must concede that for one or two of the reasons which the Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to indicate I may have failed to attain the object of these Amendments, but I should like to impress upon him that when we originally discussed Clause 32 the case was that the ordinary resident occupier should not have to suffer as a result of planning. That was generally accepted on both sides.
On the other hand, if the definition of the resident owner-occupier of land is as wide as it is now we may saddle the local authority with the acquisition of a large number of houses occupied by many people. That seems to me to carry the compensation proposals far beyond anything contemplated in the Clause. However, if I am right at all—and I am supported by the valuers of the London County Council—I hope that some Amendment or modification may be made in another place.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 48, line 10, to leave out "three" and to insert "ten."
This is a separate point, and perhaps I may briefly address myself to it. As I indicated when speaking to the previous series of Amendments, in order to fall within the definition of "resident owner-occupier" in subsection (6), the person can be tenant of the premises with a term of not less than three years remaining unexpired.
Many local authorities consider this unexpired period to be too short for a person to serve on the appropriate authority a notice to purchase. Such an


interest might well couple with it a heavy liability for repairs. The premises may be worth very little quite apart from any result of planning proposals. The period which would appear to be appropriate, being the sort of period which would occur in a commercial transaction, would be ten years. It is for that reason that I am suggesting the Amendment.
10.0 p.m.
If the Bill becomes law in its present form it would enable a resident owner-occupier with a very short lease to require a local authority to take the property with this very considerable liability for dilapidations. It would also mean in a great many cases that money spent on repairs would be useless. The lease might well have fallen in before the local authority was actually in a position to acquire the remaining interest and proceed with the development.
It places on the local authority a heavy responsibility which to a large extent could be avoided if the Government accepted the period of ten years instead of three years.

Mr. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is a point I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the Amendment. The Clause is headed:
Obligation to purchase resident owner-occupier's interest affected by planning proposals.
It means that until the development plan has been approved there can be no planning proposals in this kind of case. It is only the introduction of a development plan that sets in motion the provisions of the Clause.
The area concerned may well be included in the development plan for slum clearance or some other form of comprehensive redevelopment. The comprehensive redevelopment may not be undertaken for some years. It may be ten years or longer before the local authority has the resources to put into operation its proposals for redeveloping the whole area.
I could understand it if the Clause provided that at the time when the development plan designated this area for redevelopment persons who had been resident there for a minimum period of

time should be entitled to ask the local authority to take over their houses if they could not sell them. In many cases, however, it will be found that owner-occupiers in residence at the time of the approval of the development plan may be able to dispose of their houses, in a short time at fairly reasonable prices.
Is it fair that an owner-occupier who comes into a redevelopment area for one, two, three, four, five or even eight years, after the area has been designated for redevelopment should, after having been in residence there for three years, be able to serve on the local authority a requirement to purchase his house at the market value as though there were no planning proposals in relation to this site.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Surely he can do that only if he has made reasonable attempts to sell the house and has been unable to do so except at a price which is unreasonable in the circumstances.

Mr. Sparks: That is quite true, but where redevelopment is not likely to take place for a long time it is reasonable to expect that a property could be sold in the early years. There may be exceptions but, generally speaking, in the first year or two of designation it Should be possible—indeed, I know of many cases where it has been possible—to sell the house at a quite good price.
In such cases, the new owner-occupier should be thoroughly aware that redevelopment is to take place in the future and that he may not be able to sell the house for the price he paid for it, or even at the market value, for some years to come. Is such a person to be entitled to receive the benefit of the Clause? The owner-occupier at the time when the development plan designated the area for comprehensive redevelopment has a sound case, but I would not have thought that people moving into the area subsequently ought to expect to benefit. The present period of three years, in circumstances where redevelopment is likely to take as long as ten years, may allow many people to benefit whom I would have thought ought not to be entitled to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to try to clear up this point. The period of three years is far too short. The provision must have some regard to the time


when redevelopment is likely to take place, and under the present proposals there may be a constant succession of people coming into a redevelopment area. We should know whether the provisions of the Clause relate solely to owner-occupiers in possession at the time when the planning proposals are made, or include all people who subsequently enter into possession of such houses.

Mr. Brooke: I am in some difficulty because the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) addressed himself almost exclusively to the next Amendment. I hope that it will not be necessary for him to make the same speech when we come to the next Amendment, if it is selected. I hope that he will forgive me if I address myself to the question before the House, namely, whether the term of years should he three or ten. It is a question whether riot less than three years or ten years remain unexpired. I think that I understand what is in the mind of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), but I wonder whether he has probed the repercussions of the Amendment deeply enough.
In practice, it is unlikely that a person holding the end of a short lease could prove that he was suffering from blight unless the redevelopment was likely to take place before the lease expired. Far from putting undue burdens on local authorities, I submit that it will be wiser, from the local authorities' point of view as well as everybody else's, to keep the Bill as it stands. The shorter the limiting period the harder it will be for leaseholders to show that they are blighted, because it will be extremely difficult for anybody to show that he is suffering from blight if the redevelopment is not to take place until some time after his existing lease expires.
Frankly, that is the reason which activated the Government in inserting the three-year period rather than a longer period in the Bill. If people want to take advantage of the Clause to try to get rid of embarrassing ends of leases, they are more likely to want to do so when there are very few years to run. The shorter the period the harder it will be for them to give evidence that they are suffering from blight.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will appreciate that it is inherent

in the Clause that there will not be an obligation on a local authority to purchase unless the owner of the interest in the property can prove that blight is affecting the market value of his interest.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not want to follow the Minister far in probing the repercussions of a blighted leaseholder. I think, however, that there is inconsistency between keeping three years in the Clause for the purpose of defining a resident owner-occupier and putting ten years instead of three years into a preceding Clause for the purpose of defining an owner. On the other hand, I know, and I am sure that the Minister and many other hon. Members know, that the Clause is largely directed to conditions in Wales. It has had a great deal of support from my Welsh hon. Friends, and I know, also, that in Wales there are a great many long leases expiring about now.
I feel a little anxious that in trying, to be logical and perhaps fair to people in London, we may involve ourselves in being rather hard on the Welsh. This is especially a Welsh problem, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) recognises that. He will perhaps feel that the other provisions, to one of which the Minister referred, namely, proof of damage, are sufficient safeguards in all the circumstances. Moreover, ever since the Parliamentary Secretary told us that hardly any owner-occupiers would be affected by the earlier Clauses about compensation, I have been waiting for the moment when the resident owner-occupier would get something out of a Bill which professedly was intended to give him quite a lot. Here it is, and I hope that we shall not be too stingy about it.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I referred to the fact that if the owner of the fag end of the lease was able to ask the local authority to acquire the property, the local authority thereby takes over liability for dilapidations. This is a serious point. The money would be spent on dilapidations even though, when the leases actually fall in, the local authority may not be able to enter the land because it is not yet at that phase for the next stage of its development plan. In these circumstances, does the Minister not think that


there is a problem that dilapidated property may be passed on to a local authority and public money wasted because a local authority is not in a position to enter the land for some period after the lease has expired?

Mr. Brooke: I do not consider that there is a genuine danger here. I was obliged for what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said. The owner of the interest cannot take advantage of the Clause unless he can show that he has been unable to sell it except at a price substantially lower than that for which it might reasonably have been expected to sell if it was unblighted.
I seriously doubt whether many of the owners of fag ends of leases would he able to show that, because the probability is that blight will not affect the value at which they could dispose of the fag end of their leases. In any event, their interest is an interest that must he valued in relation to everything that attaches to the interest, and it seems to me most unlikely that under the ordinary provisions of compensation law they would be able to establish a high value for such a fag end if the fag end of the lease carried with it the sort of onerous obligations to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has referred.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 48, line 13, to leave out "that" and to insert "the relevant".
To complete this series of my Amendments, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House for me to discuss, at the same time, the Amendment in line 18, to leave out from first "the" to "the" in line 19 and to insert "relevant date".
Briefly, it is considered by a number of local authorities that the powers given by the Clause to a resident owner-occupier should be available only in cases in which the land was occupied before the relevant date as defined in subsection (7), that is, the date when the proposal affecting the land is formally confirmed.
If a person purchases property already affected by any of the proposals specified in subsection (1), it does not seem right that he should be able to take advantage

of the Clause. The Bill, however, provides in subsection (6) for a qualifying period of occupation of six months before the service of the notice and, in the case of unoccupied property, a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of the service of the notice. Neither of these periods specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (6) bears any relation whatever to the question of whether the property was occupied with knowledge about the proposals.
These two Amendments, taken together, would provide for a clarifying period of occupation of six months prior to the formal confirmation of the proposals affecting the land. It is considered that the usual inquiries to designate or allocate the land, if made six months beforehand, would be practicable and possible, but inquiries earlier than that would probably not produce the necessary information. It would seem, therefore, that this redefinition of the clarifying periods would both improve what I am sure is the intention of the Clause and would make the proposals much more readily workable by the local authority in applying them.

Mr. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has had the advantage in support of his Amendment of the speech made in seconding the previous one. I hope that I shall answer both of those speeches if I address myself to the speech made on this Amendment.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not want people to be able to take advantage of the provisions in this Clause in a way which seems to him to be unfair. Broadly, he wishes to establish that if an occupier has come in and taken possession of the property after the date of the event from which the blight stems, then he should be regarded as having taken on his shoulders voluntarily the risk of blight, and, therefore, should not be able to get advantage from the Clause. Again, I venture to say that I believe on further analysis he will find that it would not be wise to make a provision of this kind, and I cannot help thinking that there would be a risk of causing hardship unwittingly if we were to accept this Amendment.
Let us take the case of land which has been defined in a development plan as a site for a school, but where the land is not expected to be required for school purposes for perhaps fifteen years from the date of the development plan. He and I, having both had some connection with the County of London Development Plan, will appreciate that this is a case which might easily arise in London. Then we might find an owner-occupier wishing to move three or four years before the land was required for school purposes. He finds that owing to the blight he cannot sell. Yet if the Amendment were accepted he would not be able to take advantage of this Clause unless he could show that he had been the owner-occupier of the property at the date when the development plan was approved, which, by then, would be ten or twelve years before.
In fact, it is in the later years that the blight settles. Indeed, my expectation would be that when the basis for compensation has been changed, as it will be by this Bill, and when Clause 32 is on the Statute Book, it will lead to a much freer market in all this property; and, if the blight settles at all, it will be much slower to settle. My fear is that if these Amendments were made, the blight might come down at a much earlier stage, because then there would be the two classes of owner-occupier property, that is to say, the classes where the owner-occupier had been in possession at the time of the development plan, and the other classes of property which would suffer under this Amendment because the owner-occupier had not been in occupation at that date. Certainly, the Amendment would thereby increase the amount of blight. It would make it more likely, in my judgment, that the local authority would have to purchase.
The most desirable result of this Clause is that properties will to a considerable extent be saved from being blighted at all. That is what would suit everybody. It would suit the owners, and it would suit the local authorities, because the local authorities would not have the obligation to purchase imposed upon them; but I cannot help thinking that if we were to make these Amendments, they would ensure that any property affected by a proposal under a development plan, however, remote in the future, would be blighted

from the date of approval of the plan so soon as a new owner moved in.
I cannot think that that would be to anybody's interest, and on those grounds, having thought about the matter as well as I can, I would advise the House that nobody would gain by introducing this further complication into this Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 50, line 19, to leave out from "and" to end of line 20 and to insert:
for the words from 'a freehold interest' to the end of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the words 'the dominium utile in the land, subject to any feu duty, any ground annual and any servitude or other restriction affecting the land at the relevant time, but otherwise free from burdens.'
This Amendment is put forward to meet a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who asked why the words explaining the phrase
such an interest in the land as is mentioned
were included in respect of England, but not for Scotland. The Amendment fills in that gap, and explains the words, as he wishes.

Mr. Ross: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I should like to thank the Joint Under-Secretary for what he has done. I think that this Amendment serves two very useful purposes. The first is that it makes it a little more clear to anyone reading the Bill exactly what is being done in relation to Scotland, and, at the same time, it demonstrates the great difficulty that Scots hon. Members have had over the way in which this Bill has been dealt with.
Undoubtedly, an English Member reading the Bill would know exactly what was intended by the reference to a particular Section of the Act of 1954, but the Scots were left completely in the dark. Even with these Amendments, anyone who tries to do it would find that it takes some little time to work it out, put the whole thing together and get an intelligent result. I hope that the Minister will at least have learned that Members from Scotland do not like to be treated in this off-hand and inconvenient way, and that he will not repeat that performance.
The second thing is that we now have in the Bill, and they will remain enshrined for all time for English legislators, the


words dominium utile. These words had, at first, an air of mystery, and were never reasonably well explained to the satisfaction of anyone during the Committee stage. Now, we have side by side the English term "freehold interest", and that explanation, and our dear friend dominium utile enshrined in the English Bill. We know that we are to get a separate Scottish Bill and that everything Scottish will be extracted from this Bill, but the English will be left with dominium utile in their town and country planning legislation for a long time.
I am sure that in accepting this Amendment at the suggestion of my hon.

Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, the right hon. Gentleman has provided a key to the actual meaning of the phrase.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I add my plea and hope that the Minister will introduce a Bill to remove this Scottish jargon from an English Bill. "Freehold interest" I can understand. The rest does not convey much to me and I do not see why, because of the confusion which the Government have caused by introducing one Bill instead of two, we English should be afflicted with this unintelligible stuff.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38.—(RECOVERY OF CERTAIN SUMS FROM ACQUIRING AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 52, line 30, at the end to insert:
(2) Section fifty-two of the Act of 1954 shall also have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if the following subsection were inserted after subsection (2) of that section:—
(2A) Without prejudice to the last preceding subsection, where the interest was acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served, or a contract made, before the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and on the date of service of the notice to treat, or on the date on which the contract was made as the case may be, the land in which the interest subsisted was used wholly or mainly for agricultural purposes, subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to so much of any payment referred to in that subsection as is attributable to any part of the land in respect of which it is certified by the Minister that he is satisfied that the acquiring authority have no intention—

(a) of using it (otherwise than temporarily) for purposes other than agricultural purposes, or
(b) of disposing of it by way of sale, exchange or letting with a view to its being so used."
This Amendment is designed to implement an undertaking, which I gave in Committee, to exempt local authorities from the obligation to repay payments by the Central Land Board under Part I of the 1954 Act in respect of agricultural land.
I am very willing to explain it to the House, if desired. It arose originally from a case affecting Banstead Urban District Council, on which I have had some correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head). I wrote to my right hon. Friend saying that I was desirous of finding a means of relieving that Council from what appeared to me to be a hardship and that the right way was by suitable Amendment of the Bill.
There might be three or four other cases which will be affected by the Amendment and where the councils will gain exemption. But the total number will be small and I think that it will commend itself to everybody that we should exempt this small class of case.

Mr. Mitchison: I moved an Amendment, dealing with the Banstead Council, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member

for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who had been asked to do so by the Urban District Councils' Association. We thank the Minister for having done what he said he would do, to give some relief in these cases.
This is retrospective legislation and I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that we regard retrospective legislation differently when it relieves hardship and imposes a burden. As a whole, the Clause imposes a burden on certain local authorities, including both Kettering and Widnes, upon which we had a discussion in Committee. I would not wish to repeat that discussion, but my objections to retrospective legislation, when it imposes a burden or solves a difficult point by legislation instead of making it necessary to go to the courts, remain as strong as ever they were. I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes would like to say a word or two on behalf of that great borough.

Mr. MacColl: I cannot refrain from responding to an invitation of that sort from my hon. and learned Friend. I warmly welcome the fact that the Ban-stead case has been met. I merely deeply regret that it has been necessary, in meeting it, to introduce the words:
shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect …
It is an extraordinary thing that no way has been found to deal with this problem except by stating that the law is what it probably was not.
This is a Clause which, on the whole, is one to which my hon. and learned Friend and I have the strongest objections, for precisely the reason that those words appear in it. Our complaint is that our constituencies have been cut off from access to the courts because we dared to stand up to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman talked about local authorities being free agents and about interference with them. But as soon as he is frustrated he alters the law to suit his own ends and to avoid being challenged in the courts. It is a shameful thing and I deeply regret it.

Mr. Brooke: Bearing in mind the attack which hon. Members opposite launched on me during the Committee stage on the issue of retrospective legis-


lation, I am a little surprised that they do not take exception to the words:
… and shall be deemed always to have had effect …
in this Amendment which, apparently, they welcome.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 54, line 3, at the end to insert:
(c) subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as if, in the subsection (2A) set out therein, for the words "the Minister", there were substituted the words "the Secretary of State"; and
This Amendment applies to Scotland the provisions of the Amendment which has just been made in respect of England.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39.—(APPLICATION OF ACT TO CROWN.)

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 54, line 30, to leave out Clause 39.
This is the Clause which was replaced by the second new Clause on the Notice Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42.—(PROVISIONS AS TO INQUIRIES, NOTICES AND REGULATIONS.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 55, line 10, to leave out "section" and to insert "sections."
It might be convenient if, with this Amendment, we discussed the following Amendment in the same line.
This point was raised rather hurriedly in Committee because we were getting towards the end of the proceedings, but it is one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) attaches great importance. I hope that I can explain it on his behalf, although I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters.
This Clause imports certain parts of the 1947 Act into the Bill, but one of the Sections of that Act which is not imported is Section 106, hence the mystic figure in the Amendment. That Section gives power to require information about ownership of land to the Minister, the Central Land Board, or a local authority. Experienced authorities, such as the London County Council, regard this as a

valuable power which it would help them to have.
When the matter was discussed in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary was unable to meet us, and we are raising it again in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will have been able to give more consideration to it and be in a position to help local authorities in this rather complicated matter by meeting their genuine wish to have these facilities contained in the Bill. I should have thought that Section 106 of the 1947 Act could be imported into this Bill without any serious complication arising.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Bevins: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for his short explanation of these two Amendments which, as he said, we considered in Standing Committee. We undertook at that time to look again at this proposal and that we have done, but I must say to the House that the two cases we were considering in Standing Committee, and are still considering in the House, are quite different.
The proposal in the Amendment which has been moved is that Section 106 of the 1947 Act should be applied within the context of this Bill, but the two cases which the House is considering are quite different. In the first case, the local authority, where it enjoys the powers of Section 106, is carrying out functions as a local planning authority. Admittedly, those powers are very valuable to it as a local planning authority, but here we are dealing with the obligation which rests, not on local planning authorities, but on all applicants for planning permission, whether they be local authorities or private persons.
Under the terms of the Bill as it stands, all parties are in the same position and we feel there is no adequate reason for singling out one type of applicant for a more favourable and advantageous procedure. In those circumstances, I am sorry to say that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: I am very disappointed with the Parliamentary Secretary. I have now to break the news to my hon. Friend that he has been turned down in this way and he will know that it is through


the inadequacy of my advocacy. I had hoped that at the end of this long and weary Bill I should at least be able to say to my hon. Friend with a happy smile that at last reason had triumphed and that the Parliamentary Secretary had seen reason, but, now I can only report back to him that we are no further forward than we were.

Mr. Mitchison: With the leave of the House, may I add another plea to the hon. Gentleman? Section 106 has a penalty attached to it and I agree that it would be inappropriate in relation to this Bill, but it enables a local authority to get information about owners of land which might be required for the purposes of this Measure, in particular, for serving some of the notices required to be given, which we have been discussing earlier today.
I suggest this is not a case of putting one person on one side of a bargain in a better position, but merely removing the type of disparity from which a local authority is bound to suffer. I do not ask either the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend to give us any undertaking at this stage, but I wonder whether they would consider the Section minus the penal clause, simply in the light of facilitating the work of the Measure. Local authorities will find the discovering of some of the people they have to discover rather difficult and they should not be deprived of this power for that purpose. I do not ask for an answer now.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 44.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: In page 56, line 15, at end insert:
authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies" means a government department or local or public authority within the meaning of that Act, or a person or body of persons to whom that Act applies as it applies to such a department or authority."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Orders of the Day — Fifth Schedule.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVI SIONS AS TO PURCHASE OF RESIDENT OWNER-OCCUPIER'S INTEREST.)

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 70, line 25, at the end to insert:
(b) that the appropriate authority (unless compelled to do so by virtue of section thirty-two of this Act) do not propose to acquire any part of the hereditaments in the exercise of any relevant powers.

The House may be pleased to hear that the next five Amendments are linked with this Amendment and could conveniently be taken at the same time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Brooke: As a group of Amendments, they are formidable, and I am ready to explain them at length if the House desires. At this hour of the night, perhaps, it will suffice to say that paragraph 4 of the Fifth Schedule may not be wide enough. Paragraph 4 applies where notice is served under Clause 32 (1, b) as a result of a road proposal shown in a development plan. It is possible that a notice may be served under other provisions of Clause 32 (1) where the land will not be required for the scheme which is apparently causing the blight, and it may be possible to prove this by reference to information other than the limited range of orders, schemes and plans described in paragraph 4.
The main purpose here, therefore, is to insert in paragraph 2 of the Fifth Schedule an additional ground on which the counter-notice may be served, namely, that the authority does not propose, apart from the provisions of Clause 32, to acquire any part of the hereditament in the exercise of any relevant powers. This new ground for the service of a counter-notice will go wider than paragraph 4, and that paragraph is, therefore, deleted by one of the Amendments.
The other Amendments all deal with consequential matters arising out of that major change. I say "major change". It is a major change so far as this group of Amendments is concerned, but it is not a major change in relation to the Bill as a whole. I would gladly seek to explain what each Amendment does, if the House desired me to do so, but it may be that that brief explanation will suffice. So far as I am aware, there is nothing controversial in any of these Amendments.

Mr. Mitchison: The Amendment in page 70, line 39, provides for a method of treating objections which are now introduced. In paragraph 3 (2) of the original Fifth Schedule, I find what appears to be an opposite treatment for other types of objection. Is there some reason for that distinction?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, there is. It seemed to the Government that, unlike the other counter-notice under the existing headings in paragraph 2, the onus of proof in these cases, if the counter-notice is served on the new ground, should rest upon the authority and not upon the owner.

Mr. Mitchison: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why?

Mr. Brooke: Because in this case it is the local authority which is seeking to show that the land will not be required for the scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 70, line 32, at end insert:
(3) Any reference in this paragraph to relevant powers—

(a) in relation to land falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section thirty-two of this Act, is a reference to powers of compulsory acquisition exercisable by reason that the land is designated as mentioned in that paragraph;
(b) in relation to land falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, is a reference to powers of compulsory acquisition for the purposes indicated in the development plan in relation to that land;
(c) in relation to land falling within paragraph (c) of that subsection, is a reference to powers of compulsory acquisition exercisable for the purpose of constructing, improving or altering the road indicated in the development plan;
(d) in relation to land falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection, is a reference to powers of compulsory acquisition exercisable by virtue of the special enactment referred to in that paragraph;
(e) in relation to land falling within paragraph (e) of that subsection, is a reference to a power of compulsory acquisition exercisable in respect of that land by reason that it forms part of a road, or of the site of a proposed road or of the site of a road as proposed to be improved, as mentioned in that paragraph; and
(f) in relation to land falling within paragraph (f) of that subsection, is a reference to powers of compulsory acquisition exercisable for the purpose of constructing, improving or altering the road shown on the plans referred to in that paragraph.

In page 70, line 37, after "and" insert:
subject to the next following subparagraph".

In page 70, line 39, at end insert:
(3) An objection on the grounds mentioned in head (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of the last preceding paragraph shall not be upheld by

the Tribunal unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the objection is well-founded.

In page 70, line 44, leave out paragraph 4.

In page 71, line 32, at end insert:
5.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where the grounds of objection specified in a counter-notice under section thirty-two of this Act consist of or include the grounds mentioned in head (b) of sub-paragraph 1 of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and either—

(a) the objection on the grounds mentioned in that head is referred to and upheld by the Tribunal, or
(b) the time for referring that objection to the Tribunal expires without its having been so referred.
(2) If a compulsory purchase order has been made under the appropriate enactment in respect of land which consists of or includes the whole or part of the hereditament to which the counter-notice relates, or if the case falls within paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section thirty-two of this Act, any power conferred by that order, or by the special enactment, as the case may be, for the compulsory acquisition of the interest of the claimant in the hereditament or any part thereof shall cease to have effect.
(3) If the case falls within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section thirty-two of this Act, then (without prejudice to the effect of any subsequent designation) the development plan shall have effect as if no part of the hereditament were designated therein as land subject to compulsory acquisition.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 72, line 1, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the next following sub-paragraph".
If you agree, Mr. Speaker, I think that the following Amendment could be taken with this one.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Bevins: Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to explain what the effect of the Amendments is. Shortly, it is this. It is possible that an authority, having decided not to counter a blight notice, may wish to take possession of the land before compensation has been settled. If an authority were to do so, were to carry out work on the land, and the owner then withdrew notice under Clause 32, the deemed notice to treat would disappear and the acquiring authority might find itself to be a trespasser. That would be wrong, and the Amendments correct that.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 72, line 9 at end insert:
(2) A person shall not be entitled by virtue of the preceding sub-paragraph to withdraw a notice after the appropriate authority have exercised a right of entering upon and taking possession of land in pursuance of a notice to treat deemed to have been served in consequence of that notice.—[Mr. Bevins.]

Orders of the Day — Seventh Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS AMENDED.)

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 77, line 48, at the end to insert:
and in paragraph (c) of the proviso to that subsection, after the word 'authority' there shall be inserted the words 'or statutory undertakers'".
This, and the next four Amendments, are all consequential on Amendments which have already been made to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 78, line 1, leave out "and".

In line 5, at end insert:
and in subsection (5), after the word 'authority' in paragraph (d), there shall be inserted the words 'or statutory undertakers', for the words 'or authority' there shall be substituted the words 'authority or statutory undertakers', and for the words 'and authorities' there shall be substituted the words 'authorities and undertakers'".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

In page 78, line 13, after "and", insert:
in paragraph (c) of the proviso to that subsection, after the word 'authority', in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or statutory undertakers' and after the word 'authority', in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or, as the case may he, those statutory undertakers';".

In page 78, line 18, at end insert:
and in subsection (5), after the word 'authority' in paragraph (d), there shall be inserted the words 'or statutory undertakers', for the words or authority' there shall be substituted the words 'authority or statutory undertakers', and for the words 'and authorities' there shall be substituted the words 'authorities and undertakers'".—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

10.54 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
After 25 sittings of the Standing Committee on the Bill and two full days on

it in this Chamber I propose to be brief. The main purpose of the Bill is to restore, in assessing compensation for public acquisition of land, the system which gives the seller the same compensation as he would have obtained had his land been sold in the private market. I should like, at this stage, at once to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) for having raised this matter last year.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said on Second Reading, the Bill is the second stage in dealing with the problems left by the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. It may not have been the intention of that Act that the owner of land taken by a public authority should get a lower price than he would have got in a private sale. In practice, however, it was its effect that land continued to change hands in the private market at a figure above its existing use value, in spite of the fact that the purchaser had still to pay a development charge to the Government before he could use the land for the purpose for which he had bought it.
The first steps in undoing the practical difficulties and injustices resulting from the 1947 Act were taken in 1953 and 1954 when the private market in land was set entirely free from the system of development charges. At that time it was still reasonable to retain compensation for public acquisition on the basis of existing use value, with the addition of development value as established in 1948. Five years have now elapsed and there has been the further development of a two-price system, and the difference between these two price levels has now become such that the maintenance of the system does not do justice to the owner of the land acquired by public authorities.
In the discussions which have taken place on the Bill, both upstairs and in the Chamber yesterday and today, we have concentrated largely on the mechanics of arriving at market value. We believed that directions should be written into the Bill so as to ensure that market value is in future assessed on a reasonably precise basis in the circumstances of the present day—that is to say, in a world where land use, and, therefore, the market in land, are greatly affected by the generally accepted system of planning control under the Town and


Country Planning Acts—Acts which are now generally accepted sometimes gladly and sometimes with resignation.
The basic rules are still the rules established by the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act so long ago as 1919. What the Bill does is to supplement these rules with enough, but no more than enough, guidance about their operation in a planned world where the valuers have to know the uses to which it would be permissible to put any piece of land, and thus the kind of demand for the land that would exist in the private market if those uses were permitted. Indeed, if there were no such guidance there would be no real basis for appeal. What we have attempted to secure is a fair deal for both the public buyer and the private seller in the assessment of market value.
Another important aspect of the Bill is the provision which it makes for dealing with the difficult problem of planning blight. Clause 32 seeks to protect resident owner-occupiers of property which has become unsaleable at a reasonable price because some public authority has made known its intention of purchasing the property at some later date. The scope of the Clause has been extended and, while certain aspects remain restricted to certain owner-occupiers, the Government have undertaken to look at this aspect further, because we are all anxious to safeguard the position of the small man whose livelihood or means of survival may be at stake.
Even without further extension of Clause 32, I am sure that much good will result from the more ample provision now made in Clause 37 for advance purchase, with the appropriate grant aid to local authorities, where, in their discretion, the authorities think it reasonable to buy property in advance of their actual requirements and thus help people not covered by Clause 32 out of any difficulty resulting from planning blight.
A special form of blight settles on a house when it is declared unfit, especially if it is owned by the family who live in it. Under the present law such a family may, for the best of public purposes, be deprived of its home and receive only nominal compensation. The various aspects of this problem were discussed in the course of our proceedings, together

with the planning and valuation situation which lies behind it. I am glad that there was a welcome on both sides yesterday for the Government Amendment to ensure that owner-occupiers receive at least a minimum compensation in all cases and never a purely nominal payment.
While this has been, and is, essentially a Great Britain Bill, there have been a few points, though not many, peculiar to Scotland. During Committee and other proceedings, we have heard a good deal about Scotland and her land tenure system from Scottish Members, who made up for their lack of numbers by their industry and vigour. Our discussions have clearly shown that the compensation provisions rest on the same bases of planning and valuation principle in both countries and that it has been perfectly proper, and, indeed, desirable, to debate them in common session with English Members.
The Bill is, however, an intricate Bill and I was happy to have had the opportunty yesterday of expressing our definite intention to ask Parliament to re-enact it in Scottish form as soon as possible. We hope that this can be achieved soon after the Bill becomes law. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on Second Reading, there is a precedent for re-enactment. The precedent is the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947. The desirability of re-enactment in any particular case is not in any way a confession that it was wrong to have had a Great Britain Bill in the first place. My right hon. Friend was the first Scottish Member to speak on Second Reading and he indicated then the reasons why he considered it right to have a Great Britain Bill.
Despite the vigorous and, at times, prolonged efforts of Scottish Members of the Opposition to demonstrate their disagreement, we are still of opinion that it was right to have the Great Britain Bill. My right hon. Friend also undertook, however to consider re-enactment and we now have definitely decided to re-enact at the first opportunity. I trust, therefore, that before long we shall have on the Statute Book two Acts of great importance which clear up the town and country planning legislation in a very satisfactory way.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: For anyone who finds himself, as I do, rather fortuitously, on the Front Bench after many years in the


past, and, I hope, a good many years in the future, on the back benches, it must always be one of the most satisfying parts of the experience to feel that one is keeping some of one's less fortunate hon. Friends from taking part in the debate. That, however, is not a feeling which I have tonight.
The one thing on which I can agree with the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is that we had a wide-ranging debate upstairs. We spent a great deal of time discussing the Bill. If the Scottish Members learnt as much about English jargon as we learnt about Scottish jargon, there may have been some profit in it. We had some far-reaching, imaginative discussions. We had the Minister of Housing and Local Government brooding in almost perpetual vigil over a hypothetical sewerage farm. We even discussed the development value of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) as a Privy Councillor. Of all the happy metaphors that arose, however, that left by the right hon. Gentleman tonight will linger longest in my memory. I refer to the picture of the right hon. Gentleman probing the repercussions of blight floating on a fag end.
After that, there is little that I can say in favour of the Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary nobly tried to reconcile it with the 1954 Act. Of course, the two cannot be reconciled. One of the few good things that the Bill does is that it dismantles "Macmillan's folly." It is a rather gloomy thought, but to dismantle the 1954 Bill has taken even longer than it took to erect it, and we thought that that took long enough. The truth is that the Prime Minister was then Minister of Housing and Local Government, and he made a major blunder in his attempt to dismantle the 1947 machinery. We warned him that it would lead to difficulties for people outside and to grave political difficulties within his party. It did that. We had the humiliating experience of the right hon. Gentleman being left alone and deserted one Friday by his own party, and now, as a result, here we are with the attempt to answer the problem.
Another thing about the Bill is that it is very wide in scope. We have had a great deal of talk about the owner-occupier, but the Parliamentary Secretary

rather let the cat out of the bag a bit too soon, because it was early in our proceedings when he told us that as a general rule the owner-occupier does receive the market value from the acquiring local authority. So, from that moment, a lot of the appeal to the little man went by the board. It was the old, old story. We soon found that the Bill was really not designed to help the little man, or the owner-occupier. That was merely a stalking horse, behind which the paying out of more taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to big property owners was the real object of the Bill.
This was done under the guise of restoring something which is called "market value". The more one has looked at" market value, "the clearer it has become that" market value has no meaning at all. It is a complete myth. It is a kind of complicated and highly abstract game, embodying a great deal of crystal gazing, the result of which would bear no relation to what the ordinary person thinks is meant by "market value."
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were supplementing the 1919 rules. That was an understatement, because what they are doing is departing in a major point from those rules, by introducing for the first time since 1919 the conception of extra compensation for compulsory purchase because the purchase is compulsory, and that is something we have never had before. It is not a grant out of goodness of heart, to some particular hardship case. It is to be made to everyone who is to be affected by Clause 15 of the Bill.
Clause 15 is the most vicious part of the Bill, because it says that when the acquiring authority and the property owner have reached an agreement, or when a price has been fixed by arbitration on the basis of the facts as they are at the time when the transaction is completed, when the property and the land has passed, years afterwards there may be a change in the situation, owing to the facts and conditions having changed. If the land is to be used for a different purpose, the whole transaction is to be opened again, and the property owner is to be brought back into the picture and handed out extra compensation.
Why? Because he has lost more than before? Of course not. The loss he has


incurred is precisely the same two or three years later as it was at the time when the original compensation was fixed. The only justification for doing it is that the new use to which the land is being put by the public authority is more remunerative than the old use. In other words, the private property owner is to be given the right to share in the profits from the development undertaken by the public authority.
That puts in its right context the whole attitude of the Government. as shown in all these discussions, to the question of development by public authorities. There is a deep resentment against the idea that local councils and other bodies should develop land for the common good. There is a feeling that it is something to be discouraged and obstructed, a feeling that, on the whole, the local authorities will act in a way that is unfair and wrong, and that the situation has got to be watched carefully. As I say, although the Government never dare say that they thought the local authorities were acting in bad faith, in fact that is the only justification for this—that they were engaged in a cheap swindle, although the Government would not accept that that was the real reason behind it.
On the other hand, there are those who hold that the local authorities are developing land for the common good, on behalf of the ratepayers and taxpayers who are just as poor as property owners and have as much right to be treated fairly and honestly, and therefore it is just as wrong to make ratepayers and taxpayers pay more compensation than is necessary for the loss incurred by the property owners, as it is to do the opposite.
Our real objection is that all along there has been this confusion, and the Government have not been able to make up their mind what they are trying to do, whether they are trying to ensure that the loss incurred by the property owner is fully compensated, or whether they are trying, on the other hand, to see that he gets a share in the profits that will ensue from the activities of the community.
After all, the effect of the principle that is enshrined in the Bill—that when market value is calculated one of the things that have to be assumed is that

planning permission would be given for the development by the acquiring authority as much as for any other development—is immediately to raise the compensation which is given based not on the use to which the owner might have put the land and not on the loss which he has suffered, but on the fact that the community is to get some gain out of what is done on the land, and, therefore, the private property owner has to be given a share of what ought to be the gain of the community as a whole.
That leads me to the next comment, which I do not want to develop because we discussed it on Second Reading, that the Bill does not, except in a minor way. face the whole problem of betterment—the problem that a great deal of the improvement in the value of a piece of land that will come from development will not be created by the work of the landowner nor from anything done on that piece of land, but is possible only because of what is being done by the community as a whole.
A great deal of the value that will arise from the planning permission, in many cases, is not intrinsic or inherent in that particular permission, but arises because other pieces of land have got permission and because the local authority is throwing out roads and drains. including my right hon. Friend's hypothetical sewerage farm and all the other essentials of hypothetical development which can become complicated and difficult when one is trying to build a picture in order to get an idea of the basis of valuation.
I would like to say again what was said on Second Reading. I quite agree that it may seem incongruous, having said what we have said, that we shall not vote against the Bill. My reason for not voting against is perfectly simple and clear. There are certain Clauses which we welcome, but the main reason why I personally would not vote against the Bill is that if I did so I would not be voting for the 1947 solution of these problems, which, on the whole, I still think was a wise and prudent solution; we are voting for the preservation of the 1954 attempt to solve the problems which we are all agreed, on both sides of the House, was a most crushing failure. Therefore, because it would be foolish to blind oneself to the fact that something


has to be done about the 1954 Act, the wisest thing is to let the Bill pass with all its faults and injustices, because it will provide something a little better and a little fairer than that Measure.
We can only regret that owing to the follies of the 1954 Act and of the Prime Minister so much of our time, of the time of the House and of the work done by lawyers and surveyors outside the House, has been wasted during the past five years.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was kind enough to suggest that I may, to some extent, have been responsible for 25 sittings upstairs in Committee and three on the Floor of the House, I hope that I shall not be considered impertinent if, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I offer a measure of appreciation and congratulation to my right hon. Friend the Minister and his hon. Friends for the way in which they have managed to steer the Bill through its long course, hampered throughout by the fact that a very large number of those who have contributed to it have quite clearly missed most of the point which they were supposed to he discussing.
I do not want to leave out of the compliments with which we end these debates the Opposition Front Bench. I think that the acrobatics of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have perhaps been the cause of very considerable admiration, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has time and again had to assure the Committee that his party is really devoted to fair compensation, and sometimes even to market value, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Indeed, we have almost heard the suction of the mud as the hon. and learned Gentleman has pulled his back benchers out of the mire into which they had dug themselves.
We admire that, but the only effect has been to show the superior Parliamentary skill and understanding of my right hon. and hon. Friends who, we have no doubt, will be back after the General Election with more progressive legislation.

11. 18 p.m.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I had not intended to speak on Third Reading, and I can promise the House that I shall not do so at any length. I have been provoked into rising by two references made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) in Committee as well as by what he called dismantling "Macmillan's folly."
Legislation is a continuous process. The 1953 Act stopped the development charges and the simultaneous and inflationary pay-outs of the £300 million compensation. Something had to be done then to provide a proper system of compensation for land which was compulsorily acquired.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Housing and Local Government introduced the 1954 Bill which provided compensation for land which was compulsorily acquired at existing use value plus what had been set up under the machinery of the 1947 Act. the unexpended balances of the claims under Part VI of that Act for the development value of land acquired compulsorily.
That, I think, was the only possible solution at that time. I have always felt that it would have been wrong if my right hon. Friend had proceeded straight to market value. I do not think that he could have done that in the circumstances which applied in 1954. and I am quite sure that had he attempted to do so the Opposition would have been the first to protest.
We have passed from that, and the evidence that a new system was required was seen when my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) introduced his Private Member's Bill on the subject in February of last year. It became apparent that there was widespread demand throughout the country for a return to fair market values where land and houses were being compulsorily acquired against the owner's wishes and in many cases to his great disadvantage.
It was then right that my right hon. Friend should have undertaken legislation, even though it cannot have been easy for him to do so in—I will not say "the last two months"—the last year of office. To embark on legislation of this kind in those circumstances was a courageous thing for him to do. We


should recognise that. I gladly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the splendid, untiring and courteous way in which my right hon. Friend attended all our proceedings over the 25 sittings in Committee upstairs.
I very much welcomed the announcement made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that there is to be separate enactment of the Scottish provisions of the Bill. No one could fail to have sympathy with Scottish legal practitioners who have to extract the Scottish provisions from a United Kingdom Bill which is not only of great length but is also of considerable complexity, and those hon. Members who sit for Scottish constituencies must have been pleased, on Second Reading, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that consideration would be given to the possibility of re-enacting the Scottish provisions of the Bill when it reached the Statute Book. My right hon. Friend has been as good as his word, and I warmly welcome the fact that quite soon there will be a Scottish Bill dealing with the purely Scottish applications of this Bill.
I hope that that may soon be followed —of course not in this Parliament—by what Scotland and, I believe, the remainder of Great Britain needs—a consolidation Measure for all the town and country planning legislation which we have placed on the Statute Book in the years since the war.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: I do not intend to defend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister against the gibes of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). The Prime Minister is well able to look after himself. Indeed, at a time of day when we thought that we might have become rather more non-political the hon. Member tempts me to remark that there were times when I found it difficult to square the attitude of the Opposition on Second Reading, when they at any rate paid lip service to the principle of market value, with the determined efforts which they made in Committee to try to ensure that the owner of the land did not receive market value when it came to the point. At this hour, however, I do not want to stress our differences.
There is, indeed, little more to say. But I believe that the whole House wishes me to express thanks to that body of civil servants in many different Government Departments and to Parliamentary counsel, all of whom devoted long hours of work and their great skill to the shaping of the Bill under Government direction. They work with equal loyalty for all Governments, and Parliament could not do its job without them.
I fully recognise—and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) need not have reminded me of the fact from time to time, as he did—that a Minister is greatly advantaged in dealing with these complicated matters by having the work of Government Departments behind him. Nevertheless, I trust that the hon. and learned Member will accept it from me when I say, in all sincerity, that a number of us on this side of the House have watched with respect the care with which, on behalf of his party, he has examined the Clauses of the Bill, the skill with which he has drafted Amendments, and the knowledge with which he has expounded them. We might think his efforts misguided, but there should unquestionably be an Opposition at work on a Bill of this kind, and the hon. and learned Member has played his part in the Parliamentary achievement of taking it through the House of Commons.
I express my thanks to those Members of the Standing Committee who took an active interest in the Bill, particularly my two hon. Friends who have spoken in this short debate. Naturally, my mind goes back to that somewhat awkward Friday when it fell to me to deal with a Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), some long time ago. A great deal of water has passed under the bridges and a great deal of value has floated down the streams since then. Though none of us claims that this legislation is necessarily perfect, I am convinced that it brings us a great deal nearer to doing justice than did the state of legislation which that Private Member's Bill criticised and sought to remedy.
I have also to thank my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretary and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and my right hon. and learned Friend the


their help I could not possibly have piloted the Bill through. I think that everybody was impressed by their knowledge and patience through long hours of debate.
As Minister for Welsh Affairs, I now realise that I have an advantage over the Secretary of State for Scotland. In Wales, everybody at any rate speaks English nowadays and it must be perfectly clear to all hon. Members who have taken part in the proceedings on this Bill that Scotsmen who have anything to do with property emphatically do not. You, Mr. Speaker, have listened to these long hours of debate on a subject with which you yourself have reason to be very closely acquainted. In the light of the Bill, I think that you must have been conscious that it is now proved, whatever the text books say, that Parliament is bilingual.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I shall not repeat what I said on Second Reading. I stated why we did not divide against the Bill, and our reasons for not dividing against the Third Reading are the same. We feel that the Bill has not been altogether improved in Committee, and I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that, having not divided against the Bill, we have in fact in Committee attacked the principle of open market value. This is obviously a matter upon which people will take different views. What we have been trying to do has been to secure fairness between the two parties to a compulsory sale.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, quite sincerely and in the spirit in which he spoke, for the very kind words which he was good enough to use about me. I hope that he will allow me to say that in Committee we had a very great deal of help from my hon. Friends. By the end of the Bill, I think I am beginning to understand a little, but not much, about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

TELEPHONE SERVICE, SHEFFIELD

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.30 p.m.

Sir Peter Roberts: This debate concerns the finances and operation of the Sheffield telephone area. At the start, I should like to pay tribute to the Post Office and telephone service in Sheffield. We are proud of the way in which that service is run, and we were glad when my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General visited Sheffield recently in his official capacity.
I last raised this matter five years ago, and at that time there were 2,500 people waiting for telephones. I am glad to say that the figure is now less than 200. That reflects great credit on those who run our affairs. A friendly telephone service is already a fact in Sheffield. I raise this matter again because I feel that my hon. Friend did not give me the necessary figures for my argument about the income and expenditure in the Sheffield telephone area. After a great deal of trouble I have been able to find them out for myself. They are figures which were given to the Post Office Advisory Committee, to the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and to other bodies. If these figures have been published in this form, I cannot understand why they could not have been given to me.
These are the figures so far as I have been able to work them out, and I should like my hon. Friend to confirm whether they are right. Up to the year ending March, 1957, the expenditure figure was £711,000 and the revenue £2,228,000. For 1958–59, the expenditure is likely to be £780,000 and the income £2,500,000. In November of last year I asked the Postmaster-General what were the receipts and outgoings. I did not ask for a profit and loss account but for these particular figures. I was told I could not have the figures because they were misleading. I was not even allowed to decide whether or not they were misleading, I was just not allowed to have them. I made that request in the form of a Written Parliamentary Question, and in January I put down another Question asking for the receipts and outgoings, when my hon. Friend said that I could not


have the figures because they were not compiled.
If these figures can be given to the Post Office Advisory Committee, why cannot they be given to a Member of Parliament? I hope—I say this more in sorrow than in anger—that it is not because my hon. Friend thinks he cannot be bothered to give these figures to the House. It would be a sad thing were that the case. I would point out to him that in my constituency there are 75,000 Sheffield people and I feel that he should go out of his way a little to get these figures for them. In any event, I hope that tonight he will not continue to frustrate me.
The main point of this debate so far as I am concerned is to take the figures I have given and relate them to the question of the shared telephone service. If I am right in my calculations, making allowances for the payment to the operators which are paid through the head postmaster's account, and making certain allowances for overhead changes from Leeds and in London, I should say there is a surplus in the neighbourhood of £200,000 to £300,000 coming from the Sheffield telephone area. If I am right. I should have thought it prudent business to see that that area was encouraged and extended.
At the moment, 12,000 people have residential telephones on a single line and 8.000 are sharing a line. I suggest that that proportion is too high. The main object of this debate is to ask my hon. Friend if he cannot do something further to help those who are on shared lines. I admit that many of these people want to be on a shared line. I am not discussing those but only those who do not wish to be on a shared line. I ask if he has any idea what those numbers are. I have been given a figure of only 5 per cent., in which case it would amount to only 400 people.
From the point of view of the Post Office it is good business to have a shared line. A single line costs £12 and a shared line twice £10, so the Post Office gets £20, but this is a public service and that is not the criterion by which the mind of the Postmaster-General should operate. I ask that some immediate action should be taken to assist us in Sheffield in view of the figures I have

quoted to see that those who wish to have a single line and are on a shared line should be given this opportunity.
I am not alone in this. I will quote from the very good publication in Sheffield called "Quality" in which the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce has expressed a fear that, in spite of the declared intention of successive Postmasters-General ultimately to provide freedom of choice of the single line, the telephone authorities might come to regard compulsory sharing as an established policy merely because it has been in operation for so long. Unless the administration were reminded that compulsory sharing should be abolished as soon as practicable the matter might ultimately be overlooked.
I wish to re-emphasise that and hope that the Postmaster-General and my hon. Friend will not overlook this point and let it run on indefinitely. I hope my hon. Friend will not hide behind the rule of uniformity—that the country as a whole must be kept at a level. I suggest that some areas are more go ahead than others and some staff teams are more go ahead than others. The engineering staff in Sheffield is one of the most efficient teams in the country. We are very proud of the achievements of that team and do not feel we should be handicapped or held back.
If we are a profitable area, as I suggest we are, we should be encouraged. If Sheffield is in this fortunate position the public of Sheffield should get some of the benefit. I ask my hon. Friend to speak to the Postmaster-General and ask him to give what I believe in telephone terms is called a flexible route and not hold back the efficient areas because other areas are not so far forward. I also ask the Minister to clear up the problem of shared lines, particularly where they are wanted, and that if in future I ask for similar figures of this kind, my hon. Friend will allow me to have them if they are available.

11.39 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I hope to deal with the specific points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts). First I take the question of the figures for which he asked and over which I am sorry to discover he is so aggrieved. I suppose it


would be possible to produce a set of figures for any or all operations to prove any or almost any of a number of contentions. It would not be difficult to abstract from the trading figures of the Post Office something which would satisfy my hon. Friend's intention, namely, to have a figure which would lead him to believe that he had been confirmed in his suspicion that Sheffield was a profitable telephone area. I beg him not to fall into this trap of his own making.
Although it is possible to provide figures of one kind or another, they would not he figures which would enable my hon. Friend to proceed further from them. The Post Office is a national undertaking. It operates in every town and village in this country, both in postal and telecommunications matters. Whether my hon. Friend likes it or approves of it or not, the Post Office operates on a basis of uniformity of charges, as directed by this House. It operates from a headquarters here in London, from regional headquarters at nine centres over the country, and for its telephone operations it operates from 57 telephone areas. But the telephone areas are divided again into 600 groups of telephone exchanges, and the groups themselves contain in all 6,000 exchanges.
Some may be more profitable because of their greater use. Some may be less used than others, perhaps because of their remoteness. perhaps because of the sparsity with which the telephone users are scattered about a big area, or perhaps because there are a few long lines in an area compared with a greater concentration of short convenient lines. It may he that an area is profitable because it makes a lot of use of trunk circuits and provides a large trunk revenue for the Post Office. Another area may make only little use of the profitable trunk lines.
It may well be that Sheffield, taking any one of these criteria, is better than some other areas. But if my hon. Friend wants to proceed from that to conclude that the Post Office should enter with wild enthusiasm into an expansion of the telephone service in Sheffield. let me caution him with a warning. Sheffield may be all these things. I know his city and admire it well. It may be all these things, and perhaps the Post Office is making

a handsome profit out of telephone transactions in Sheffield. But there are other areas in the country which, taking my hon. Friend's own basis, are doing even better. Suppose that there are ten areas which are in front of Sheffield, or, perhaps twenty such areas. There are Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff—all bigger areas, more highly concentrated, and perhaps more active areas. There is certainly London, in which all the telephone areas will be more active and profitable than Sheffield. Sheffield might not be at the bottom of the list, but it would not be at the top. If the Post Office is to concentrate its available resources on the basis my hon. Friend suggests, Sheffield might do worse. not better, than it has done until now.

Sir P. Roberts: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate and give credit for the operations in Sheffield, which I understand to be, even on his own admission, highly successful.

Mr. Thompson: Yes, I am coming to that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying his tribute to those who operate our service in Sheffield and to the results which they have achieved in recent years. It is a striking fact that the waiting list has been reduced as it has, and new subscribers have been joined, and continue to be joined, to the system at the present rate. We hope to join 2,500 new subscribers during 1959–60. It is a striking tribute to the policy of the Post Office to develop this area that we have it now entirely mechanised, with the exception of about eight exchanges. It is a striking fact that we have invested £3½ million in the area during the last five years. That is hardly starvation diet for one telephone area out of 57 telephone areas in the country. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that we have been able to do a great deal.
The fact is that we have to try to devote our resources, which are not unlimited, not merely on the basis of fairness but on the basis of the developing telephone service of the nation as a whole. We try to do it in a way which will produce the most fruitful results not only in terms of profit but also in terms of service to all the people of the country.
What my hon. Friend suggests would, I am sorry to say, be a retrograde step.


My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has devoted great energy and imagination to bringing the telephone servise from its position of a collection of 6,000 separate exchanges, each operating its own list of charges, each working more or less in its own area as if it were isolated from its neighbours and the rest of the network, into the conception of groups of exchanges covering, for a basic local call charge, an area averaging about 900 square miles; and subsequently to the conception of the nation as a whole served by one vast local call network.
We initiated this in December last in Bristol, when Her Majesty the Queen made the first subscriber trunk dialled call for 2d. from Bristol to Edinburgh. The development of the service is to be on those lines so that the whole country becomes a local call area where charges will be simplified, bills will be rendered in simplified form, and the whole of the operation of keeping in touch with one another from Sheffield to London or from London to Sheffield or from Sheffield to the remotest hamlet in the land will be easy, convenient and cheap.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend, bearing in mind the motto of the great city he represents here, "Work flourishes with God's help," will believe that we in the Post Office are doing our very best to give to his constituents a satisfactory and economic service and to himself an opportunity of feeling that we are doing our best with the resources at our command and in the time available.

Sir P. Roberts: I hope my hon. Friend will deal with the question of shared lines and will give some hope to those 400 people I mentioned.

Mr. Thompson: I wish to deal with that most important question my hon. Friend raised.
That shared service should be visited upon someone who does not want it as distasteful to the Post Office as it is to the customer. We have no desire at all that any of our subscribers should have this inflicted on them if they do not want it. Nevertheless, we are driven by the necessities of the situation every now and then to ask people to share a line in order that someone else can enjoy the facility of the telephone which otherwise would not be available to him. It is not unreasonable. There are 600,000 people in the country today linked by the telephone service who are, therefore, in touch with everyone else, who, without shared service, would not be able to be linked in that way.
Whenever we can, as we have stated in a White Paper on telephone policy, we hope people will be offered and will take advantage of the choice of having either shared service or exclusive service, whichever they want. If we are some distance away from being able to make that as widely available as we should like, as we whittle away the waiting lists in various areas it becomes increasingly possible for us to do so. I should like my hon. Friend to feel that the day is not so very far away when that choice will be available to his constituents. I am happy to tell him that there are fewer people in Sheffield telephone area sharing lines today than was the case twelve months ago, and we intend to go on trying to produce the situation which my hon. Friend so ardently and properly desires.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.